Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

New Deal for Lone Parents

Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the new deal for lone parents. [147903]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment Ms Margaret Hodge): The new deal for lone parents is the joint responsibility of our Department and the Department of Social Security and is operated through the Employment Service. New deal personal advisers offer a comprehensive package of advice and support to lone parents on income support and have helped 78,000 lone parents into work since the start of the programme in 1997.

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend. Is she aware that in the Rotherham and Barnsley district, 289 lone parents have moved into work in the past nine months, which is 55 per cent. of those participating in the programme, compared with the national average of 35 per cent? Will she pay tribute to the quality of our personal advisers, the rapport that they strike with their clients and their knowledge of the local labour market? Does she recognise that one other factor in our success rate is that the background of the personal adviser team covers the Child Support Agency, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service? Will she reassure me that that will continue when the personal adviser meetings become mandatory for income support claimants after 30 April?

Ms Hodge: I was aware of the figures in my hon. Friend's constituency and I congratulate the personal

advisers in his employment team who have been so successful in putting so many people into work. Personal advisers are playing a crucial role in building confidence among lone parents and in helping them to break down the barriers that have prevented them from moving from unemployment into work. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to recruit personal advisers from the wide spectrum to which he referred.

Post-16 Education

Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to encourage more students to remain in full-time education after the age of 16 years. [147904]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): We have created the first ever legal entitlement for 16 to 18-year olds to free education and training for young people, which we are supporting with a range of measures, including the new Connexions service for 13 to 19-year-olds, financial support through education maintenance allowances and reform of qualifications and programmes to secure high standards in academic and vocational options for all 14 to 19-year-olds.

Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he had an opportunity to look at the recent Education and Employment Committee report on access to higher education, particularly the recommendation that zones similar to education action zones should be set up for higher education to improve aspirations and to widen access for youngsters who have no tradition of staying in education? Does he agree that that would benefit areas such as the centre of my constituency and many others like it; ensure that all suitably qualified youngsters have a chance of higher education, wherever they come from; and end this country's current gross waste of talent?

Mr. Wicks: We welcome the Select Committee report and will study its conclusions with great care. We already have the excellence challenge because of our concern that all children with good academic qualifications should have an opportunity of going to all universities, including the best in this country. We have also introduced opportunity bursaries for young people from communities with no background of going to university. We are concerned to bring into practice opportunity for all, including those from the poorest backgrounds.

Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest threats to the expansion of further education provision for 16 to 24-year olds is the disparity in pay and conditions between lecturers and teachers? Does he agree that that is felt particularly in sixth form colleges? What do the Government intend to do to address that acute problem?

Mr. Wicks: We are aware of the disparity between schools and sixth form and further education colleges and we want to address that issue in the long term. There has to be levelling up. Discussions are taking place with both sides—trade unions and employers—about pay in sixth


form and further education colleges. I am confident that the settlement will move us a significant way towards bridging the gap.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend and the education team look closely at the Select Committee report published only this morning, particularly the clutch of proposals aimed at getting young people from poorer backgrounds into higher education? Will he look particularly at the premium paid to universities, which we recommend should increase from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. so that it can reach back to the 16-year old who drops out of education or to 11 and 12-year-olds so that there is a culture of education around them and an ambition to go on to higher education.

Mr. Wicks: As I said, we welcome the Select Committee report. When I chaired the Committee, I was in on the report's birth, so I certainly welcome it. We are spending £150 million on the excellence challenge and opportunity bursaries. The 5 per cent. extra for those from poorer backgrounds is something for something—not a profit to the university, but money that is required to support those students. We shall certainly consider all proposals with great care.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: In the decade to 1997, the number of students going to university from the poorest homes doubled; since Labour took office, the number has stood still. Do the Government recognise that replacing the student grant with a loan that has to be repaid from earnings of £10,000 annually acts as a deterrent to families who have never earned more than £10,000 annually? Will the Government join Conservative Members by agreeing to raise the threshold for student loan repayment to £20,000 annually? We believe that those students have the potential to earn £20,000 annually, and much more as well.

Mr. Wicks: Let us deal in facts and not Tory fiction. The number of young people from poor backgrounds going to universities is increasing, and we are determined that it should increase more quickly.

Mr. St. Aubyn: It is in the report.

Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman might not want to listen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should expect the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), once he has asked a question, to listen to the answer.

Mr. Wicks: I always remember the hon. Gentleman as an excitable member of the Select Committee.
The number of young people from poor backgrounds attending university is increasing. The policies that we are putting in place will enable more young people from poor backgrounds to go to university, including our best universities. Our system of fees and loans is fair to students, fair to families and fair to the taxpayer. Very soon, 50 per cent. of those going to university will pay no tuition fees at all.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the education

maintenance allowance scheme that is being piloted in Worcestershire, and to the increased number of young people aged 16 to 18 whom the scheme is encouraging to stay on in schools and colleges. What plans does he have to roll out the scheme in other parts of the country? What plans does he have to make the Worcestershire scheme a permanent one?

Mr. Wicks: Education maintenance allowances are still a pilot exercise—albeit on a large scale as they now cover one third of the country. The early results are showing improvement in participation and a better approach by students once they are in college. The feedback from the young people and teachers whom I meet is excellent. Obviously we shall have regard to the pilot findings when addressing the issue of a national roll-out.

Mr. John Hayes: Does the Minister recognise and appreciate the relationship between staying-on rates and the quality of life that children experience in the statutory period of their schooling? If that experience is nasty and brutish, is it not also likely to be short as they strive to get out of education at the earliest possible opportunity? If indiscipline and disruption is their experience—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but Opposition Members are angry because people's lives are being blighted by disruption and indiscipline in schools. If, as Ofsted revealed, that is a growing problem, and if that problem is linked to the failure to recruit teachers—which in itself stops people staying on at school—is it not time that Ministers replaced their indifference with a commitment and determination to stop our children's lives being blighted and our teachers' careers ruined?

Mr. Wicks: We shall obviously very carefully consider the recommendations and points in the Ofsted report; I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. We have 1,000 pupil support units in our schools to help us tackle that problem. We have also made some very clear statements about the need to eradicate bullying in our schools. We will do anything to support school governors, head teachers and teachers in tackling the problem. We are very concerned to tackle the problem. We are not complacent about it, and we are moving in the right direction. Every one of our young people should be able to be taught, and our teachers should be able to teach, in an environment that is conducive to learning.

Teacher Vacancies

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What recent meetings he has had with ministerial colleagues to discuss the number of vacancies in the teaching profession. [147905]

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What recent meetings he has had with head teachers to discuss the number of vacancies in the teaching profession. [147912]

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What recent meetings he has had with parent groups to discuss teacher recruitment. [147916]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and I regularly meet those parents, teachers and heads who have a commitment to raising standards in recruiting and retaining teachers.

Mrs. Laing: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, throughout the country, but particularly in Essex, there is a severe crisis in teacher recruitment and retention?-If so, why will he not see that his policy of piling red tape, bureaucracy and form filling on new teachers, who have joined the profession because they have a vocation to teach, is causing them to leave, because they are expected to be administrators, not teachers? If he wants to retain teachers in the profession, why does he not change his policy and allow them to teach?

Mr. Blunkett: When I wrote back to the director of education in Essex, I asked him to contact us at the Department if there were any particular problems in schools in Essex. I have no knowledge of any such contact being made. We have increased recruitment to teacher training by more than 2,200 this year; the latest figure for applications for teacher training from this coming autumn is up by 12 per cent.; and the number of inquiries made to the inquiry helpline has gone up from 39,000 this time last year to 114,000 this year.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Secretary of State aware that the situation in Hampshire, as in Essex, is very serious indeed? Head teachers in my constituency have told me that they are gravely concerned about the lack of candidates applying to fill vacancies. Just before Christmas, Fernhill primary school was on the point of sending children home early. Only at the very last minute did it have just one application for the vacancy there, enabling it to keep running at the beginning of this term. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Hampshire, between September and December no fewer than 500 vacancies were advertised, with 60 advertised last week alone?
It is a very serious situation. The Secretary of State keeps telling the House and the country that everything will be resolved because of all the people who are applying for teacher training, but will he confirm that no less than 25 per cent. of those who apply for and take teacher training give up before they get into the classroom?

Mr. Blunkett: First, let me make it absolutely clear that I have never said, and never would say, that all will be resolved by the measures that we have so far taken. We know that, in a tight labour market, there will be a continuing challenge to ensure that we recruit and retain sufficient highly qualified teachers to be able to do the job that we are setting them. We also recognise that, having recruited an extra 7,000 teachers over the past two years, and having substantially increased both pay and promotion prospects, so that a good teacher can stay in the classroom and earn £31,000—£34,000 in London—we are now taking the necessary steps to put right what began in the 1980s, when there was a massive drop in recruitment to secondary teaching, and a total lack of action by the previous Government.

Mrs. Gorman: Would the Secretary of State be interested to hear about my discussions with parent groups

in my constituency? They are absolutely fed up and disgusted that their children are being taught in classes not of 30 and 40, but sometimes of 90, when classes have to be amalgamated because there is no one to teach them. Furthermore, they do not regard classroom assistants as a substitute for fully qualified teachers. Would the right hon. Gentleman also be interested to know that they hark back to the days when we had grant-maintained status, when schools had the opportunity to make their own arrangements and when we were creating a proper free market, in which parents had real choice? Will he note that they are looking forward to the free school policy of this Government when we get back into office after the general election?

Mr. Blunkett: I am always interested in the rantings of the hon. Lady, and not least in the fact that she thinks that her party is still in government. It is this Government who are tackling the teacher shortage and the retention of teachers. It is this Government who will have increased the level of teachers' pay that we inherited so that an experienced teacher of seven years' standing, who was paid £21,000 when we took office, will be able to earn £31,000. It is this Government who have put in place measures to help individual schools.
I am aware of one school which, on one day, grouped three classes so that 90 children took part in PE and music lessons, but that is not the same as 90 pupils in one class being taken by one class teacher as a result of teacher shortages. I put the facts on the record just in case someone reports a ridiculous story that starts another ridiculous hare running.
There is a serious problem, and it needs to be dealt with seriously. The hon. Lady's statement is neither serious nor helpful in resolving that problem.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the effective efforts being made by Slough and other areas close to London to solve problems with recruiting teachers? Part of the work of our education action zone is devoted to providing houses for teachers, which has helped local schools to recruit. Will my right hon. Friend encourage other areas with similar problems to develop strategies to provide housing for new teachers, so that they can recruit and retain more teachers.

Mr. Blunkett: I think that the initiative described by my hon. Friend is excellent, as was the one in Reading that was ridiculed by one national newspaper. That is why last week we allocated another £5 million for an immediate recruitment drive that will pay teachers to come back for a six-week refresher course in shortage areas. It will also pay for child care for those with small children. Instead of disparaging and shying away from re-joining the best profession in the world, people will be encouraged to join it.

Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unlike the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), Labour Members with constituencies in Essex have not been shouting and ranting about the difficulties faced by schools in the county? Instead, we went to County hall to meet the director of learning services and other senior officials to proffer our help and support in easing the difficulties faced by the director and by head teachers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in


congratulating teachers and head teachers in Essex, who have worked very hard to manage the difficulties with recruitment that they have faced? Does he agree that, if the previous Conservative Government had invested as much money as this Government in education, we would not have those problems now?
One of the difficulties facing education in the south-east is the high cost of housing. Will my right hon. Friend consider ways of dealing with that problem when he looks at teacher recruitment?

Mr. Blunkett: I strongly welcome the very positive measures taken by my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Essex. They have helped rather than hindered the task of recruiting more teachers. My hon. Friend's question demonstrates why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have been dealing with support for housing, and why, in a debate in the House a couple of weeks ago, I asked for ideas to be suggested. So far, I have not received any such ideas, but I am still open to persuasion. We will continue to look at new ideas, such as the new retention bonus, which is an accumulated bonus of £15,000 over three years which will help to retain teachers in schools facing challenges and thereby enable us to do the job of raising standards for all our children.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff and students at Hull university campus in Scarborough, who have made a special attempt to encourage more mature students to enter the education department for postgraduate qualifications? Will he also reserve time in his very busy diary to come and see the valuable work that is being done there? Will he say what measures he is taking to encourage more mature students to avail themselves of the opportunities to enter what I agree is the most important profession in the world?

Mr. Blunkett: I am always up for a trip to Scarborough, but preferably when the weather is a bit better and the crabs are freshly in from the sea.
I congratulate the university on its initiative. Under the graduate teacher programme, which this Government initiated, more than 1,000 mature students are working as teachers, being paid the graduate salary. We will expand the initiative to 1,600 places this year—a solution that is providing an immediate answer—with those who have experience being able to use it in the classroom.

Mr. Roy Beggs: In Northern Ireland, the number of highly qualified students wishing to enter the teaching profession vastly outnumbers the number of places available at university and teacher training college. Will the Secretary of State consider discussing with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and perhaps with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland—how the number of places available for teacher training might be increased so that the United Kingdom has sufficient qualified teachers and does not have to poach teachers from overseas, especially from areas where they are already greatly needed?

Mr. Blunkett: We welcome qualified graduates from across the United Kingdom and elsewhere to the teaching profession. We do so in particular in those shortage areas

where, because of the new bursary system and "golden hello" payments for those entering the profession, we have seen a turnaround.
I am happy to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to those wishing to apply for secondary school teacher training. The latest figures show a very welcome uplift in the number of those seeking teacher training for secondary specialisms—1 per cent. for mathematics, 2 per cent. for English and 5 per cent for science. I would like that to be fostered right across the United Kingdom so that the uplift can be mirrored in other parts of our country.

Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as the research by Professor Howson shows, the number of teacher vacancies in London alone is 10 times higher than official figures show?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not. A census has just been taken, from 18 January, and the update indicates that although there has been a drop in the number of vacancies at primary level from 0.8 per cent. to 0.5 per cent., there has been an increase of 0.1 of 1 per cent. in the number of vacancies at secondary level. That is higher in London, but is similar to the position last year, using the same vacancy definition as the previous Government used.

Mrs. May: It is no good the Secretary of State saying that the definition is the same as that used by the previous Government. Come the election, parents will not be asking what the definition of a vacancy is. They will note the way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the genuine parental concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Parents will ask, "We pay the tax, so where are the teachers?" They will ask why their children are being sent home early, taught in larger classes or taught by unqualified staff. They will ask why more newly qualified teachers are leaving the profession than four years ago, and why the Government are driving teachers out of the profession as a result of increasing red tape, mushrooming work load and burgeoning bureaucracy. They will ask why the Government are doing nothing about the growing national crisis in education.
The time has come to set the schools free and trust teachers again. Will the Secretary of State apologise to the House and to parents, children and teachers for his breathtaking complacency and the damage that his policies are doing to children's education?

Mr. Blunkett: It used to be my old friend Arthur who ranted and raved and put people off joining the Labour party; since he left, the flood into the Labour party has increased. I suspect that the hon. Lady will have had the same effect on anyone who switched on the Parliament channel this morning. It will not be ranting and raving that resolve the problem, but people, locally, in schools, and from the local authorities that she would abolish, who are helping schools to recruit and retain teachers. It will be the uplift in salaries—including the performance-related pay that the Opposition would not fund—that will solve the problem. It will be the reductions in paperwork; last term, there was a reduction of two thirds in secondary schools, and of 40 per cent. in


primary schools. It will be enabling teachers to teach better and to achieve greater satisfaction from their successes with the literacy and numeracy programmes. It will be rejoicing in the successes of those teachers. Those are the things that will encourage young people to join the profession and existing teachers to stay—not the rantings of Opposition Members.

Employment Service Direct

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What his latest assessment is of the effectiveness of Employment Service Direct. [147906]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The award-winning Employment Service Direct has demonstrated its effectiveness by placing 130,000 people in work since its introduction in January 1999; up to 231 of those people are in my hon. Friend's constituency. The service's effectiveness is shown by the fact that it has helped us to deliver the lowest unemployment for 25 years.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for that answer. I pay tribute to Employment Service staff in east London for the excellent job that they are doing. Will the Minister advise the House how Employment Service Direct fits into the broader proposals for the use of more advanced technology further to improve overall service provision both for employers and for job seekers?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Employment Service Direct is part of a £400 million programme of modernisation, including worktrain, job banks and 9,000 touch screens in jobcentres, enabling unemployed people throughout the UK to have access to about 400,000 vacancies at any time. That supports the Government's drive to end long-term unemployment. I hope that the Opposition, too, will congratulate the Employment Service on this great effort.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Minister seen the note from the House of Commons Library, dated 19 January, which concluded that, since the Government came to power, 300,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, whereas under the previous Conservative Administration there was a net gain, with the creation of 70,000 jobs? Does she agree that her Government have failed manufacturing industry and those who have lost their jobs in it?

Ms Jowell: I will certainly study the note, but I also remind the House that, during the 18 years of Conservative government, 2.5 million jobs were lost in manufacturing. The scars remain in the parts of the country that were hardest hit. Under the Labour Government, long-term unemployment is at its lowest for a generation.

Ms Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Employment Service Direct in Doncaster is complemented by the pilot jobpoints scheme. Even though the pilot scheme has been running for only three weeks, it is already proving to be extremely successful in helping people to find work. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that an assessment will be made

quickly of the effectiveness of jobpoints pilots and that, if their present success continues, a decision will be made quickly to roll them out nationally?

Ms Jowell: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that jobpoints will be available nationally. Their effectiveness is judged through their success in getting people into work. I visited the Birkenhead scheme on the day it was launched. Job seekers like it. Employers are looking for people to fill vacancies. Jobpoints will get people into work more quickly.

School Sport

Mr. Bob Russell: If he will publish league tables of the number of hours of physical education provided by each school within the curriculum timetable. [147907]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment(Jacqui Smith): Ofsted collects information about the percentage of taught time for each subject when inspecting schools. In January, the Prime Minister announced an entitlement of two hours of physical education and sport, during and after school, for all children. We will consult and work with all interested parties on how that can best be achieved and monitored. Furthermore, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will shortly produce guidance for schools on how to achieve two hours of physical education a week.

Mr. Russell: The Minister is obviously reluctant to give the figure, because she well knows that, at best, only 25 per cent. of children receive that amount of physical education within the school curriculum. Is it not about time that we stopped the unhealthy obsession with academic league tables, when the health education unit of Exeter university has produced evidence to show that regular exercise helps children to do better? Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be more physical education within the school curriculum? Does she agree with Sport England's view that it is important to revitalise school sport?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. All students receive physical education within the national curriculum from the age of five to the age of 16, but I agree that we need to do more to develop a good experience in sport for our young people. That is why the major investment in sport, pledged in September 2000, includes £750 million to improve and strengthen our sports facilities. It is why £130 million has already been allocated to local education authorities, which are planning proposals to provide facilities for sports and arts in our primary schools. It is why we are pledged to increase the number of sports colleges, such as Colne community school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to at least 150 by 2004. It is why we already have 143 school sports co-ordinators in place, with 660 primary link teachers. Yes, we need to do more to ensure that our children have the sporting opportunities that we all want them to have, which is why the Government are making such investment and why they will ensure that it is delivered.

Valerie Davey: The curriculum at key stage 2 includes an entitlement to swimming and an


attainment at swimming. Will the Minister confirm that the Department will maintain that and ensure that it is monitored very carefully across all primary schools?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in ensuring that we have high levels of swimming tuition in our schools. As I told her during a recent Adjournment debate, we have set up an advisory group to find out how we can improve the already good standard of swimming teaching, especially for children at key stage 2; how we can ensure that swimming is included in the £750 million investment announced by the Prime Minister to improve facilities; and how we can ensure that the small number of children who do not gain the required standard by the end of key stage 2 are enabled to do so. I share my hon. Friend's wish to emphasise the importance of swimming. We will continue to work to ensure that swimming teaching is maintained and improved in all our primary schools.

University top-up Fees

Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with universities on the introduction of top-up fees payable by students. [147908]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. and hon. Friends and I hold regular meetings with representatives from the university sector. We introduced the new funding arrangements for students and for repayment precisely to avoid the universities levying additional charges.

Mr. Heath: Just before the 1997 election, the then Leader of the Opposition said that he had no plans to introduce tuition fees, yet that was done within two months of Labour's coming to office. The same formulation is being used now; we are told that there are no plans to introduce top-up fees. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he did not favour top-up fees. Will the Secretary of State now give us a clear assurance? Will he categorically rule out top-up fees for the lifetime of the next Parliament? That question has only two possible answers—yes or no. Which is it?

Mr. Blunkett: I am really sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have made my position clear during the past two years: I am against the levying of top-up fees. I can now make the Government's position clear. If we win the next general election, there will be no levying of top-up fees in the next Parliament.

Dr. Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 282, and congratulate the university of London students union on its campaign in the capital against top-up fees? If any university went off on a tangent and introduced top-up fees, what would he say to that university and what action would he take against it?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right—there was a vigorous campaign, and understandably so. I assure him that the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 permits us to rule out top-up fees. The power to do that is in the

hands of the two Houses of Parliament. As I have just said, with our majority in the House after the next general election, we shall ensure that those fees are not levied.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Is not it interesting that Ministers are so far out of touch that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), has already told the House that participation in higher education by socially disadvantaged groups is increasing when the facts show that the welcome advances of the last 10 years of the Conservative Government have been stopped in their tracks? The figures from UCAS—the Universities and Colleges Admission Service—show that the numbers from such groups fell by 168 during the first two years of the Labour Administration. Given those circumstances, are we not confronted with an Administration who do not so much believe in widening participation as in widening waffle on these matters.
In view of the breach of Labour's past pledges and the implausibility of Labour's present pledges, will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House, now that he is ruling out top-fees, whether he has any similar commitments to make in relation to what, in shorthand, I call "mainstream fees"? Has he any proposals to increase the total amount of mainstream funding to meet the deficiencies in university funding that many universities have already identified?

Mr. Blunkett: Between 1989 and 1997, there was a 36 per cent. cut in the unit funding per student under the previous Government. We have for the first time since the early 1980s reversed that trend, with an 18 per cent. real-terms increase in university funding over the lifetime of the two spending reviews. The figure is £.7 billion.
I am fortunate in that I am in possession of the actual facts on the number of disadvantaged students attending university, so I shall give them to the hon. Gentleman. From 1996 to 2000, there was an uplift of 12 per cent. in the number of students from unskilled, manual backgrounds going to university. Although the total is abysmal, there was an uplift in the number from 4,900 to 5,500. That is not a drop; it is an increase. The new excellence challenge, the opportunity bursaries and efforts to reach out to raise the expectations of parents, pupils and schools will, over the years ahead, reverse a legacy of which none of us can be proud.

Long-term Unemployment

Ms Hazel Blears: What steps he is taking to reduce long-term unemployment.[147909]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Long-term unemployment is now at its lowest level for 25 years. As my hon. Friend will know, it has fallen by 70 per cent. in her constituency since May 1997. Government action is part of that success, but I hope that the House will pay tribute to the thousands and thousands of unemployed people throughout the country who have seized the opportunities provided by the new deal and other


welfare-to-work programmes to move off benefit and into work. That is good for them, good for their families and good for the economy of this country.

Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Salford now has its lowest unemployment rate for 18 years. It is below 4 per cent., which is in stark contrast to the misery of mass unemployment in the Tory years. We still have more 750 people who are long-term unemployed, but we are having some success. This week, a young man was placed in employment who had not worked since 1992. He has received extra support through the new deal and a jobseeker's grant. For the first time, he has the chance of a decent future. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under Labour, there will be more such measures of support to ensure that everyone has the chance to get a job, to get into work and to have a decent income for their families, in contrast to what happened under the Tories, when people were consigned to years of hopelessness and misery?

Ms Jowell: I can confirm that more help will be available to enable us to get rid of long-term unemployment and to see it as a thing of the past. Under the Labour Government it is win, win: a win for unemployed people who are equipped with the skills that they need to get a job and a win for employers seeking to fill their vacancies. Under the Opposition, who have pledged to scrap the Government's welfare-to-work programmes, it is lose, lose: unemployed people will lose and employers will lose because they will not be able to recruit the employees whom they seek.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady is being modest on behalf of the Government. Surely what the Government have done for the long-term unemployment statistics is simply to reclassify people. If one adds up the current long-term unemployed, the number of people currently in the new deal who are not listed as such and the number of people on follow-through, one realises that just a few thousand people have left long-term unemployment. Will the Minister now undo the spin of putting these people through the revolving door and tell the House the real facts about the real people who are still being disadvantaged by the swindle of the new deal?

Ms Jowell: The previous Government removed people from the unemployment register when they went on to training programmes. That is precisely the same as removing people from the claimant count when they go on to the training element of the new deal. There is complete consistency. What is different is that the new deal has virtually eradicated long-term youth unemployment—help that the Opposition would remove.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Measures to tackle long-term unemployment have created many more opportunities for women. My right hon. Friend will be aware of yesterday's announcement that 12.5 million women are working in the United Kingdom labour market. She will also be aware that a significant number of those women receive less pay than men who do the same job, despite the anti-discrimination and equal pay legislation of the 1970s. Moreover, the equal value arguments can tie a case down

in the courts for years. The British Coal canteen workers' case has been running for 16 years and is not yet resolved. Will my right hon. Friend see what legislation is required to ease the path to equal pay for women?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Yes, it is good news that figures published today show that more women are in work in the United Kingdom than ever before, but there is still a pay gap. To compare full-time women's earnings with full-time men's earnings, for every £1 that a man earns, a woman earns 81p. That is unacceptable in a modern labour market and the Government will shortly introduce proposals to tackle that pay gap.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of tackling unemployment is to foster good work experience in schools and good business links with schools? Does she, therefore, share the concern of the National Education Business Partnership Network, which faces the prospect of its funding being slashed by up to 60 per cent., and which has described its response to that as varying from acute disappointment to utter dismay? Will she today guarantee that funding for those vital services from 1 April will at least be maintained, if not increased?

Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today announced a further £6 million to fund precisely that programme, so a total of £23 million worth of investment is going in after all. Of course, the best way to maintain high levels of employment is through a Labour Government.

Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome the Government's recent commitment to full employment in every region, especially as it includes the employment of lone parents, disabled people and men over 55. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that will have an enormous impact on abolishing poverty in the northern region and will give a great boost to our prosperity?

Ms Jowell: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Our objective is full employment in every region. To achieve that, we must end long-term unemployment. That is why our welfare-to-work programmes are driving down unemployment, but the Opposition are pledged to scrap those programmes. We are working with unemployed people.

School Science Laboratories

Barbara Follett: What measures he has implemented to update school science laboratory facilities. [147911]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Under the school laboratories for the 21st century initiative, £60 million has been allocated from the Government's capital modernisation fund to tackle deficiencies in secondary school science accommodation over this financial year and next. That is enabling about 400 improvement projects to be carried out.
In addition, local education authorities have been able to apply for funding from the new deal for schools programme to improve the condition of school laboratories. So far, 151 such projects have been funded, at a cost of just under £37 million. Those authorities may also have incorporated improvements to science accommodation within larger schemes of school expansion, or rationalisation.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the money that the Department has made available for 13 new laboratories in three secondary schools in my constituency. Although that is most welcome, will she tell me what measures the Department is taking to recruit and train more science teachers for secondary schools?

Jacqui Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed the extra investment in her constituency, which is important in itself in providing the surroundings that are necessary to maintain teachers in classrooms and to deliver high standards. We are pleased also, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that new figures for applications for post-graduate certificate of education courses show that applications for chemistry have increased by 45 per cent., and for physics by 23 per cent. Applications overall for science have significantly increased. The action that the Government are taking to recruit extra teachers in all subjects, but particularly science, is having the necessary effect to maintain high standards and to improve them in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country.

Mr. James Clappison: So that we can have some criteria by which to judge the Minister's comments, will she simply say whether there are more or fewer recruits for secondary training in science for the academic year that began in September 2000 than in the academic year that began in September 1996? More or fewer?

Jacqui Smith: What is important is the action that we are taking to get more teachers into classrooms and more teachers into specialisms. We have already seen capital investment such as that which has been made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). The actions that the Government have taken in terms of training salaries and encouraging people into teacher training are having an effect. For the first time for eight years there are more people in teacher training this year than there were at this time last year. The Government are concerned to put in place actions that will encourage teachers into the profession and maintain them in it, while Conservative Members are keen to talk down the profession and worsen the recruitment problem.

Higher Education (Pay)

Mr. Mark Todd: What representations he has received on the implementation of the Bett report on pay in the higher education sector. [147917]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): My Department has received a number of representations on the Bett report. It is important to emphasise that the report is for employers and universities and not for the

Government. The task of Government is to fund our university system adequately. As part of record funding, we have earmarked some funding for academic and non-academic pay at significant levels. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently consulting institutions representing bodies and unions on the personnel strategies that will underpin the allocation of funds.

Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it would be helpful to urge employers in the higher education sector to commit themselves, now that they have the most generous settlement for many years, to the process of implementing the recommendations in the Bett report and resolving current disputes about higher education pay?

Mr. Wicks: We would certainly welcome anything that would prevent disputes, as we are concerned about the education of students. However, I am confident that the parties are now meeting and will resolve the matter. We obviously want our university academics to be paid well, and we must have regard to universities' performance and shortages in certain subject areas.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister may be aware of the current worsening industrial relations at Sheffield Hallam university resulting from actions arising in the dispute over implementation of the Bett report. I accept the Minister's point that detailed negotiations on pay are a matter for employers and employees, but does he have a message for the many staff at Sheffield Hallam university who have contacted me asking for the link to be made between the negotiations and the Government settlement for higher education? Does he also have a message for the employers at Sheffield Hallam university who have made precisely the same point, and said that any pay deal is utterly dependent on Government funding?

Mr. Wicks: The Department must resist the temptation to get involved in detailed negotiations, whether at Sheffield Hallam university or at any other college or university. Our task, which we have fulfilled, is to fund universities at record levels and offer funds specifically for pay in the university sector. We obviously wish to see any industrial relations problems resolved—although that is the task of the employers and the unions—for the benefit of staff and students.

Mr. Roger Berry: Although I acknowledge and welcome the Government's substantial increase in funding for higher education, with specific allocations for increased pay, does my hon. Friend accept that staff do not believe that university employers have been negotiating according to the terms of the Bett report? Will he ensure that the Government's provision for increased pay will result in a general increase in pay throughout the university sector?

Mr. Wicks: I understand those concerns. This coming year alone, we are giving an extra £412 million to the university sector. That is our task as Government—not to negotiate on behalf of employers or trade unions. The future of our university sector depends on decent and fair funding, which must be the object of negotiations.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister talked about the increased resources available to universities, which are welcome. He also talked about the quality of staff. Is he convinced that the available resources enable universities to employ quality staff, especially in the sciences? In addition, does he believe that sufficient students are going to university to study the sciences which, of course, was the subject of the earlier question tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)?

Mr. Wicks: We certainly need to encourage more young men and women to study sciences and other disciplines crucial to our economy. We tackle that in a wide variety of ways: through our schools, the modernisation of careers services and the new Connexions service. Total departmental funding for the higher education sector will be £5.8 billion this coming financial year, rising to £6.1 billion the year after and £6.4 billion in 2003–04. Unlike the previous Administration, we are providing resources for universities. It is for the universities themselves to determine the sensitivities of pay structure.

Construction Workers (New Deal)

Mr. Desmond Browne: How many more people are working in the construction industry as a result of the new deal. [147918]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Twelve thousand bricklayers, plasterers, roofers and other

construction workers have found jobs in industry, helped by the new deal. A construction taskforce is identifying further opportunities and ways in which the new deal can assist in meeting skills shortages in the construction industry.

Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply and invite her to join me in congratulating the Employment Service and its partners which have, through the new deal action team for jobs pilot in east Ayrshire, secured, in six months, more than 230 new jobs for people who would otherwise have been in long-term unemployment. Many of those jobs are in the construction industry, and the figure represents 20 per cent. of the registered unemployed in the areas covered by the pilot.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the simple fact of the Employment Service paying for training for the CITB—Construction Industry Training Board—roadworks and street certificate is daily helping people who would otherwise be unskilled to get available jobs in the construction industry? Will she confirm that that type of targeted investment in skills will be expanded by the Government? I urge her to extend that pilot project to my whole constituency.

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his support for the action team for jobs in his constituency—one of the pathfinders. There are now 40 action teams for jobs helping unemployed people back to work in some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Yes, I can promise that efforts will be redoubled to strengthen the links with the construction industry in my hon. Friend's constituency. That industry has been a valued partner in the work of the action team.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons" followed by a debate entitled "Shifting the Balance". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
Remaining stages of the Capital Allowances Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill.
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Debate on the report of the BSE inquiry by Lord Phillips on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
As I reminded hon. Members last week, we will not sit again thereafter until Monday 26 February.
The provisional business for the day that we return after the constituency week will be:
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 28 February, there will be a debate relating to informing and consulting employees in the European Community, in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 14 February, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee A relating to the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 28 February 2001: European Standing Committee C—Celevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 21 November 2000, informing and consulting employees. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 23-xxx (1999–2000).]

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House.
Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that, if re-elected, the Government would propose scrapping the pound within the next two years, will the right hon. Lady press the Chancellor to table a debate so that the Government's timetable can be fully discussed by the House? That would also provide an opportunity for hon. Members to contribute to a debate on the Government's intentions with respect to the wording of a referendum question. There appears to be some confusion on the part

of those on the Government Front Bench, not least the Prime Minister. We would welcome an opportunity to hear the Government's intentions.
As the Leader of the House announced, on Monday the second Opposition debate initiated by the Conservatives will give hon. Members of all parties an opportunity, of which they have been deprived by the Government, to vote on "Shifting the Balance"—that is, the shift in the balance of power from the Executive to the Back Benches in respect of Select Committees. Bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister has promised a free vote, will the right hon. Lady confirm that Labour Members on both Front and Back Benches will be allowed a free vote on Monday?
Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to the proceedings of Bills once they have passed from the Chamber into Committee? In particular, I draw her attention to the proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The Minister claimed on Second Reading that, under the programme motion, there would be 16 sittings in Committee. However, when the Sub-Committee met, the motion proposed by the Minister was for 14 sittings.
I know that the right hon. Lady has written to Ministers about that, but it is wholly unacceptable that a programme motion that is debated in good faith by the House should be changed when the resolution is put before the Sub-Committee. The programme motions and the entire programming procedure are still in disarray. As that was the Government's initiative, I ask the right hon. Lady to get a grip as soon as possible.
Could we also have the promised annual debate on small firms? I ask that question because of a press release circulated on behalf of the Cabinet Office by its Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Manchester Blackley (Mr. Stringer). In the press release, the hon. Gentleman claims that over-regulation is a myth. Indeed, according to the Government, small firms in the UK have little cause for concern about red tape. It is not only the Opposition who disagree with that view, but organisations such as the Forum of Private Business, which has listed many questions that challenge the Government's assertions. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on small firms, so that Opposition Members can question the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of small businesses throughout the country, about his rather exaggerated claim?
Finally, will the Leader of the House consider allowing a debate in Government time on international development? The subject has not been debated since 1 July 1997, but Opposition Members would welcome the opportunity to share with the House many of our policies, especially in relation to helping the third world. We regard such a debate as a high priority and we hope that the Government will share that view.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was in her place yesterday, so she has no excuse for pretending that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government propose to scrap the pound. She is intelligent and, as far as I am aware, she is not deaf, so she must know what my right hon. Friend said. He was asked when early in a Parliament would be, and he answered that that naturally meant during its first half. That is when the Government propose that we should seek to make an


assessment of the economic impact of joining the euro. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend said—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) wittering on. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. It has been said repeatedly and it will continue to be said.
I understand that things must be hard for Opposition Members, as they are desperate to pretend that the Government want to bounce people into a referendum straight after the election. However, we have made it absolutely clear, in the roundest and simplest possible terms, that we have no intention of doing any such thing. The Opposition are struggling, but they nevertheless have no excuse for suggesting that something was said when it was not said.
The hon. Lady asked me about the debate on the Liaison Committee issue. I am sure that she does not expect me to inform the House of the Government's advice to Labour Members on a Conservative party motion that we have not yet even seen, and I have no intention of doing so. She is right that it is perfectly normal for House business to be dealt with on a free vote, but the motion is not House business; it is Opposition business. With all charity to the hon. Lady, who did not have her present responsibilities when the Liaison Committee report was published, I point out that not all her colleagues will enter the Lobby to support the report if they are given a free vote.
As I said, we shall consider the matter when the motion becomes available. We may find that we must seek to amend it, but that remains to be seen. The hon. Lady spoke about a shift in power from Government to the Back Benches in respect of the report. In fact, there would be a shift in power from the Government to three individuals who are the most senior members of the existing Select Committee structure, in the new Parliament or whenever the proposals were introduced. That is not quite the same as a shift in power to Back Benchers, but the House will have its own views on the matter.
The hon. Lady asked about proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. I am not aware of the precise developments to which she referred and I shall certainly make inquiries. However, it is for the Standing Committee that considers that Bill to decide whether it needs more sittings to dispose of its business expeditiously. The handling of programme motions is not in disarray. Given that the technique is new and experimental, I believe that it is working reasonably smoothly. Furthermore, the procedure was not solely my initiative or that of the Government. I remind her that, at the outset of the current Parliament, the then Modernisation Committee recommended that we should use programme motions for all Government Bills. Of course, Opposition Members did not subsequently wish to adopt such an arrangement, for understandable reasons.
The hon. Lady asked for a debate on small business. I shall take that request into account. As she will be aware, every Leader of the House is most wary of promising annual debates, not least because so many such debates are sought with regard to many different issues. But I am of course conscious of the pressure for a debate on small business—and, as the hon. Lady will know, we held such a debate last year.
I am well aware that small businesses are always concerned about over-regulation. I remember them protesting when the Conservatives made them take over the handling of sick pay and maternity pay, and they were most upset when the Conservatives made them act as immigration police. These are not unfamiliar accusations.
The hon. Lady asked for a debate on international development. That is certainly an attractive thought, especially as yesterday I once again heard the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), claim that this was yet another area in which the Conservatives did not propose to make any cuts in the Government's approved budget. They are running out of options—but I fear that that is not a reason for allowing a debate in the near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's reports of an increase of £9 billion—85 per cent—in Shell's profits? Will a statement be made in the House, and will that statement call on Shell and the other oil companies to reduce the price of petrol in accordance with the Chancellor's announcements in his pre-Budget statement? If the oil companies refuse to do that, will the Chancellor be asked to impose a windfall tax on all of them in his Budget?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am sure that all members of the public will be concerned if they believe the price of petrol is being held artificially high when it would be possible, as well as desirable, for it to be reduced. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's wish for a statement examining these matters; I fear I cannot undertake to find time for one in the near future, but I am sure that, as always, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will heed my hon. Friend's words.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I think all Members will welcome the news that we now have a full day in which to debate the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill. I believe that at one point the time was to be more limited.
Does the Leader of the House recall her exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) during last week's business questions, about teachers' pay and conditions? Does she now recall—she confessed then that she was not aware of it—that a written question tabled for answer on Thursday was withdrawn and retabled for answer on Friday, so that those expecting an announcement on Thursday would be caught out? Is she now aware that the announcement was actually made on the "Today" programme on Friday morning, before the publication of the written answer? Is she satisfied that that is the best way for Government policy to be announced; and can she ensure that in the coming weeks we have a better understanding—a proper understanding—of the needs of the House and its business?
As the Leader of the House will recall, the Chancellor indicated in his autumn statement that he intended to renegotiate the level of VAT that his Conservative predecessors had imposed on the repair, maintenance and conservation of churches and chapels. Can she tell us when the Chancellor will be in a position to make a full statement on progress—he has given me an answer which, frankly, suggests that little has been made—and what he


proposes to do about the £38 million of additional funds from hard-pressed congregations that go towards the VAT budget?
I understand that the Chancellor intends to make some sort of announcement; when will he do so? We need to know the scope of the proposals, how the timetable will fit in with the delay in dealing with VAT and, indeed, whether the funds will be capped.
We agree with the Conservatives that we should have a debate on the timetable for the euro referendum—if only because it would allow their leader to repeat the pledge he gave on BBC South and West television, when he said that he was opposed to any referendum on the euro. He is not prepared to let the British people decide.

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the statement to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I shall certainly make inquiries, as it was my impression that at least some of those currently funding the Conservative party were doing so on the basis of their belief that the party would allow a referendum. We knew, of course, that there was unlikely to be one in the next Parliament if the Conservatives were elected, because they have set their face against that, even if it is in Britain's economic interests.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point; nevertheless, it does not change my view on the likelihood of a debate in the near future on these specific matters, and on the timing.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Health and Social Care Bill.
On teachers' pay, I did not follow the precise timing of the way in which the matter was handled. It is always a matter of regret if people feel that others have been informed before the House, even though that may not always have happened. There would never be any question of the timing of a parliamentary question being changed to catch people out. There may be other reasons for a change, such as to ensure that precise information was available or, occasionally, to avoid one answer being swamped by another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, that is an important matter, and the House and the country were interested in the outcome of the review, and in the Government's view on it.
With regard to the renegotiation of VAT, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be in a position to make a statement on his progress on those matters, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a statement on job losses in the aerospace industry in Lancashire? BAE Systems is wielding an axe over thousands of jobs, but we do not yet know where that axe is going to fall. Some employees are being given no real choice of deployment: the choice between working at Warton, Salmesbury or in Saudi Arabia is not a real choice for people with families. The time has come for a statement to be made.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents. I know that he and other colleagues from the north-west have been pressing for more clarity on those issues, in the

House and outside, so that their constituents might know how they are going to be affected. I fear that I cannot undertake to provide a statement in the near future, although I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will recall that it is Trade and Industry questions on Thursday, and, depending on how the draw has gone, he might find an opportunity to raise the issue then.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Health has failed to answer a question from me, on the exclusion of nurses in west Kent from the new cost of living supplement, that I tabled on 20 November? Is she also aware that he has failed to respond to a letter from me dated 24 November? Does she agree that that is unacceptable? What will she do about it?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the background to the specific constituency issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Obviously, I understand his concern. If it has not proved possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with the issue until now, I shall certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to his attention.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I assure my right hon. Friend that my request for a debate on international debt relief was not at all influenced by the question asked by the shadow Leader of the House? After all, the Opposition had every opportunity to devote one of their Opposition day debates to that subject, but they chose to debate asylum seekers and other subjects.
A recent Oxfam study showed that of 12 countries experiencing debt relief—greatly to the credit of the Department for International Development—three of them nevertheless had to spend more on debt servicing than on health and education. DFID has a good story to tell, and a lot to contribute in terms of providing a strategy for international debt relief and the reduction of poverty. Given that it has such a good story to tell, may I support the calls for such a debate?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I understand and sympathise with both the basic points that he makes. There is a good story to tell on the Government's initiative and success in promoting the cause of debt relief.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the issue of spending on education vis-à-vis debt. We have substantially increased the resources made available, committing more than £400 million since the general election to support primary education in developing countries, as part of the increase in the development budget as a whole by 45 per cent. in real terms. I accept that the Government have a good story to tell, although there remains a great deal to be done, not least in the international arena. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in Government time in the near future, but my right hon. Friend might like to consider the attractions of the time available in Westminster Hall.

Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Lady express her gratitude to the Opposition for finding time for a debate and a vote on a matter for which the Government should have provided time: the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance"?


Will she reflect on her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)? The Prime Minister made it clear that there would be a free vote on the report. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, if the Opposition table a motion in the precise words of the Liaison Committee, there will be a free vote as the Prime Minister promised?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course it is for the Opposition to determine topics for debate on Opposition days, and it is for the country to judge whether the Opposition's priorities reflect public concern. However, the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the Prime Minister said, entirely correctly as always, that there is a free vote on House matters. The Prime Minister has never said, and is never likely to say, that Opposition day debates are a matter for a free vote.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I support the call of the shadow Leader of the House for the Chancellor to come to the House, not to embarrass the Tory party about its single currency policy, but to give the Opposition an opportunity to hear the excellent speech that he made to a private meeting in Westminster Hall yesterday about the Government's plans for full employment in every region and for abolishing child poverty, pensioner poverty and poverty among disabled people?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I am aware of the Chancellor's determination to build on the solid foundations that he has laid for the economy by tackling full employment and child poverty. I understand and sympathise with my right hon. Friend's views. He knows that, despite many opportunities on Opposition days or at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Conservative party prefers dancing around the argument about angels on the head of a pin and discussing whether any aspect of the Government's policy on the euro has changed to dealing with important issues of substance to the British people and to the future of our country. Nevertheless, I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for such a debate, although I am sure that the Chancellor would be delighted to take part in it.

Mr. James Paice: Does the right hon. Lady know that yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the National Farmers Union annual general meeting that he believed it was time for a full debate in Parliament on bovine tuberculosis and the epidemic that has spread throughout the country under the Government? Has the Minister made any request to the right hon. Lady for such a debate? If so, when will it take place?

Mrs. Beckett: I would be slightly surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend had couched his remarks in those precise terms. It was not my impression that tuberculosis began to spread on 1 May 1997. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that an important agriculture debate on BSE is scheduled for the near future, and that takes precedence. The Conservative party has called for that important debate for a long time.

Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): The Financial Times reports on 30 January that the Postal Services

Commission, the new regulator for the Post Office, has issued a draft licence for consultation, which will take effect from 26 March. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the licence is placed in the Library? Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House before the licence becomes operational? I am especially concerned about the three years until the fines are introduced for late delivery. That is a matter of great anxiety to my constituents in Putney.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's anxiety on behalf of his constituents that the licence conditions should be properly aired. There are genuine problems, especially in parts of London. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor in the near future. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's request for licence papers to be placed in the Library to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I also remind my hon. Friend that Trade and Industry questions are scheduled for next Thursday. He may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Why are the Government so frightened of debating the euro? Does not the right hon Lady recognise that, when she says on the "Today" programme that the decision will be taken entirely on the subjective judgment of the Chancellor and on subjective criteria that he has set, she raises the suspicion that it will be based not on what is in the best economic interests of the United Kingdom but on what is perceived by the Government to be in the electoral interests of their party?

Mrs. Beckett: There is no question of Labour Members being afraid of debating the euro; we are just deeply bored with the endless round-the-houses pursuit by Conservative Members attempting to find something different in what Ministers are saying. The hon. Gentleman claimed that we are worried about debating the euro because a decision might be taken not in the best economic interests of the country but in the political interests of the Government. There is only one party in the House that is determined that such a decision should be based not on the country's economic interests but on its own political stance, and that is the Conservative party.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend will recall that last week I asked for an urgent debate on the cuts in vital social services being made by Tory councillors in Calderdale. Those councillors are now proposing even more damaging cuts, this time in a health and social services initiative that has just been given beacon status because it is so highly thought of. Will my right hon. Friend please make time for a debate, not just on the cuts in Tory-controlled Calderdale but on the cuts being made by Tory-controlled councils across the country?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, particularly since the cuts that caused her concern last week are now being exacerbated in a way that might damage the delivery of health and social care. She will recall that those of us who campaigned in local elections during this Parliament warned people who want to see improvements in health and social care about the inconsistency inherent in local authorities pursuing


policies different from those of the Government. If they are happy to see such provisions cut, they are entirely right to vote for the Conservative party, because that is its policy.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern but fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future. However, it is Environment questions next Tuesday and she might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the right hon. Lady note in her busy diary the forthcoming exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, commencing on 26 February, in which we hope to demonstrate our vision for a future Northern Ireland by exhibiting what is best? Will she recommend to colleagues and staff in both Houses that they seek to visit the exhibition and become better informed about what is best in Northern Ireland, so that they can fully participate in future debates?

Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his plug for that exhibition. I share his view that it is good for people to be aware of positive developments in Northern Ireland, not least because it is important to project a positive view and to see the Province move towards greater prosperity and success in the future.

Mr. John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the request by the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on international development, so that we can focus on the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, a commitment from which the Tory Government resiled during their 18 years in office, with the result that we inherited a figure of 0.2 per cent? It is important for us to increase that figure. A debate would also give us an opportunity to discuss problems such as AIDS in Africa, which is claiming 500,000 children's lives and 2.5 million adult lives.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He is entirely right that, as far as I can recall, throughout the 18 years of Tory Government there was a sustained reduction in the resources made available to help developing countries. Although I sympathise with his concern and with his anxiety to highlight the Government's progress in the right direction—a direction to which the previous Tory Government were committed in theory, although they went in the wrong direction—I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As the right hon. Lady is the custodian of the House's duty to hold Ministers to account, can she guarantee that if the former Treasury Solicitor, Mr. Hammond, presents a report to the Prime Minister on the conduct of Ministers, that report will be published verbatim and not bowdlerised, and that the Prime Minister will come to the House to make a statement upon which he can be questioned?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend immediately volunteered to establish the inquiry—which I believe is being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond—and it has been made clear that Sir Anthony's views and conclusions

will be made public. It is a matter for him now—we hope speedily—to conduct that inquiry. The Government have no concern about putting the report in the public domain. It is we who established the inquiry so that its outcome can be in the public domain.

Ms Julia Drown: The Leader of the House will know that, at business questions and on other occasions in the House, I have raised the issue of volunteers and the Criminal Records Bureau. She will also know that, this week, in a written parliamentary answer, the Government announced that they would not be charging voluntary organisations for checks to screen out those who are unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults. Could a Minister be asked to make that announcement in the House, so that all hon. Members can congratulate the Government on it? Does she agree that such an announcement would provide hon. Members with an excellent opportunity to discuss the contrast between the Government's support for voluntary organisations and vulnerable people in our communities and the support being given them by Conservative Members?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is only one of many hon. Members to raise the issue—although she has been most assiduous in raising it in the House—of the charge. The Government have always said that the matter was under review, and that is proven by the fact that the review has come up with a set of proposals different from those that were first advanced. She is right also to say that that is only one example of the ways in which the Government have massively increased support for voluntary organisations. I know that organisations such as the scouts and the guides, which in many ways led that campaign among voluntary organisations, will particularly welcome the announcement.
I fear nevertheless that I cannot undertake to offer to find time for a special debate on the issue—not least because, sadly, there are so many occasions when the House should be able to congratulate Ministers on taking action for which the House had called yet which turn out to be about something else entirely.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is now clear that, shortly after the general election, the Government will announce their intention to ditch the pound. Does the right hon. Lady understand that most of us believe that the economic criteria are largely subjective and that the conclusions will be whatever the Chancellor wants them to be? Does she also understand that many of us believe that the constitutional and political criteria are yet more important? Consequently, should we not have before the general election early and frequent debates so that the electorate can have exposed to them exactly where the Government stand on those issues?

Mrs. Beckett: If I may take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, it is absolute rubbish to pretend—as Conservative Members are clearly desperate to do—that the Government are committed, as he puts it, to "ditching the pound" straight after the general election. What the Government are committed to doing is ensuring that there is an assessment of the economic position and of whether we feel that the economic tests are met. If,


and only if, it is judged that those tests are met, the Government might make a recommendation that would be put to the decision of the British people in a referendum.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a separate point about the constitution and political criteria, which met with loud approval on the Opposition Benches. He is entirely right that these are different issues and that they are of considerable importance. The Government have never disputed that. We have simply made it plain that, having given careful and mature consideration to those constitutional and political issues, we do not take the view that they are of sufficient weight to prevent Britain from joining the euro should we conclude that that is to our economic advantage.
I see no great need for frequent and early debates to explore these issues, as the position has always been absolutely clear. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is rightly pointing out that it was the Conservatives who signed the Maastricht treaty. One must be cautious with information that comes from press reports, but I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has said that Conservative Members will be free, in their personal general election manifestos, to say that they want never to join the euro, even if it is in Britain's economic interest, or even to go so far as to say that we should leave the European Union. That is an interesting debate which is clearly being held sub rosa in the Conservative party. I wonder why it does not want to share it with the rest of us.

Mr. Harry Barnes: We had a useful Adjournment debate on Monday about unsolicited mail. A load of scams are being operated to wheedle money out of people, some of whom become addicted to the methods being used against them. As every Member of Parliament has constituents who are badly affected by such operations—and the Royal Mail does not play a very honourable role in this regard—can we have a debate on the matter in Government time? We might then end up with some red tape around the necks of the people involved, which we could tighten.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend sounds uncharacteristically bloodthirsty, but hon. Members of all parties will share his irritation about unsolicited mail—and indeed unsolicited faxes and all the other paraphernalia. I fear that although I sympathise with the anxieties that are caused, I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but I will undertake to remind my ministerial colleagues of the importance that my hon. Friend and others attach to it.

Mr. John Hayes: I must repeat the call for a debate on the subject of Britain joining the euro, because the Leader of the House did not answer the question fully. The only thing that the Prime Minister was clear about yesterday was that the pound is on death row. It has a two-year stay of execution and the only chance of a reprieve is the intervention of an incoming Conservative Government. Will the right hon. Lady make absolutely clear what the question would be in such a referendum? We failed to get an answer to that from the Prime Minister yesterday. The House and the British people want a debate on the subject, so that they

will have a fair and reasonable chance, when the referendum comes, to exercise their judgment and protect the interests of this country by keeping the pound.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that there is remarkably little to add to what has already been said ad nauseam on the issue. I know why the Conservatives repeatedly ask what the question would be in a referendum: they want to bolster their contention that we will hold a referendum immediately after winning the general election. That is not true. We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of bouncing people into a referendum straight after the election. It is also absolutely clear that, if the Conservative party were to be elected, there would be no referendum. As to what is on death row, it is perfectly clear that that position is occupied by the policy programme of the Conservative party.

Mr. Kevin Barron: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who called in business questions last week for an early debate on the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Has there been any progress?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), not for the first time, asked about scheduling such a debate. I am aware of the Committee's concern that it should be held as early as possible. Debates that require the presence of two senior Cabinet Ministers, one of whom is frequently charged with being out of the country, are not always easy to schedule. I can give an assurance, however, that such issues are under active consideration. All that I can undertake is that we will do our best.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Leader of the House has agreed that the Prime Minister meant what he said when he responded on 13 July to a question about the report from the Liaison Committee entitled "Shifting the Balance" by saying that there would be a free vote on the matter. That is encouraging, but last week the right hon. Lady made it clear to me, as she had done previously to other hon. Members of all parties, that she was going to do her best to prevent that free vote from taking place. There is the opportunity for that free vote to take place in Opposition time on Monday—and we shall leave to one side what conclusion the electorate should draw about which party stands up for the independence of Members of Parliament and their ability to hold the Executive to account. If the terms of the motion under debate are to be precisely those adopted by the Liaison Committee, will the right hon. Lady say whether Labour Members will have a free vote?

Mrs. Beckett: I have never made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I have simply answered the questions posed repeatedly by Opposition Members by saying that matters to do with the House are decided on a free vote. I have also said that we will of course look with care at any motion that the Opposition table, although we may wish to amend it. However, it has never been the case that Opposition business is the subject of a free vote.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a debate on the future of public services,


especially education and health, might be possible at some time? I am surprised that the Opposition did not pick that as the subject for one of their supply days. That is especially interesting, given last week's speech by the Leader of the Opposition on the future of public services: it seems that Opposition Members want to talk about such things outside the Chamber but not inside it. I should be especially interested to hear the Opposition's policies with regard to the two-tier education system that they want to introduce, and on the future of private health care.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point but he will know that, although the Leader of the Opposition refers occasionally to such policy areas outside the House he never manages—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at last week's Question Time—to get around to asking questions about them in the House. My hon. Friend is also right to identify the great interest, time and thought being devoted by the Government to the future of our public services. He may know that the Prime Minister will very shortly—very shortly indeed, in fact—make a speech setting out the framework within which we hope to take forward our policies on education, crime and other areas. Further announcements will be made on the policy debates that we hope to take forward in the coming weeks.
I know that my hon. Friend and others will study my right hon. Friend's speech with great interest. However, although I understand my hon. Friend's wish to have a debate focusing on how we want to improve standards in public services and on how the Opposition would—given the chance—undermine and destroy them yet again, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for that debate in the near future.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I ask the Leader of the House yet again to reconsider a debate on the abolition of the pound, to which the Government are so committed? Is it not fair to say that the manifesto on which the Labour party fought the last election committed us to a referendum in this Parliament? That manifesto went on to state:
In any event, there are three pre-conditions which would have to be satisfied before Britain could join during the next Parliament: first, the Cabinet would have to agree; then Parliament; and finally the people would have to say 'Yes'".
Why were there three preconditions before the last election, whereas now there are five? Is it because the Cabinet cannot agree?

Mrs. Beckett: Dear, oh dear! The hon. Gentleman can surely do better than that. It remains the case that, before any referendum of the British people, an assessment must be carried out. The Cabinet would then have to come collectively to the view that that assessment meant that the tests set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the full agreement of the whole Government, had been satisfied. The Cabinet would have to be confident—as far as that is possible in this world—that it would be in Britain's economic interests to join the euro. If the Cabinet so concluded, the decision would be put to the House and then, ultimately, to the British people.
The Opposition are trying to exert general pressure in relation to this matter. I may be in error, but I think that almost every Opposition Member who has raised the matter with me and expressed such great concern for the potential loss of the pound in fact voted for the Maastricht treaty.

Ms Dari Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the anxieties felt in all steel communities throughout the United Kingdom as a consequence of Corus's announcement. I am sure that she will also accept that many Members of Parliament who represent steel areas are furious at the response of Sir Brian Moffat, who, having offered us the opportunity to speak with him today, has cancelled the meeting. We see this, once more, as a sign that he is contemptuous of Members of Parliament and of this House.
Some 22,000 people in the industry are directly employed by Corus. That figure can be multiplied by five, taking into account others who are employed as a consequence. Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on steel?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to raise this matter, as have other Members representing constituencies strongly affected by the moves proposed by Corns. I think that Members across the House will share her concern if there are difficulties, when constituents' interests are so much at stake, in making contact with those who have the authority to make the decisions.
As my hon. Friend knows, there was a recent debate in Westminster Hall about this matter, and I am confident that it will continue to be aired. I fear that I cannot undertake at present to find time for a further special debate in the near future. However, my hon. Friend will know that it is Department of Trade and Industry questions next week and the issue may well come up then.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can we please have an urgent debate on the increasing but understandable propensity of the Scottish Parliament to vote increased benefits to the Scottish people at the expense of the English taxpayer? Is it not about time that we had a full explanation of why it is considered proper for the taxpayer to spend 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. more on Scottish people in terms of health and education, while English taxpayers—long-suffering and patient though they are—are expected to put up with this state of affairs indefinitely? Please can we have a debate so that we can clarify the matter and put an end to it?.[Interruption.]

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington reminds me of something that I was about to mention. The right hon. Gentleman speaks very forcefully on behalf of his constituents, although the decisions to which he refers were made long ago and are constantly aired in the House. May I say—with deep respect to you, Mr. Speaker—that it is a little surprising that the right hon. Gentleman, as a good Scot, appears to be so anxious about the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in asking for a debate on the need to introduce new law to deal with scams—postal scams in my hon. Friend's case and fax scams in mine?
My sister and her husband have a hotel in Lincolnshire, and she has sent me a huge pile of telephone scams received over the past three years. They are all false bookings for the hotel, sent out by companies that have been set up with the specific objective of conning hoteliers in the United Kingdom. The scam is talked about in hotel industry magazines to alert hoteliers, but it is going on in other businesses all over the country. We need new law to stop these scams.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and powerful point. I was not aware of the episode to which he alludes, although I am aware that, unfortunately, the fraudulent and criminal mind is always good at devising new means of taking money off people. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the issue in the very near future.
I confess that I was not aware of the point that my hon. Friend was about to raise when he first spoke about outlawing scams—I thought that he was talking about what the Financial Times said about the Conservative party's policy on student loans.

Dr. Evan Harris: Last night, the Select Committee on Education and Employment—or, at least, the Labour members of the Committee—released a report on access to higher education. We look forward to an early debate, before the election, on the Government's response to what was in the report, as well as on tackling student hardship and debt aversion, which were not in the report.
It can be seen from the proceedings that at the very last meeting of the Select Committee, the mild criticism of the Chancellor over the Laura Spence affair, previously agreed by all members, was deleted by the Labour majority. There were rumours that there was Cabinet pressure to remove such criticism which, in turn, implies unauthorised knowledge of the content of private proceedings. Can the right hon. Lady reassure the House that she and—as far as she can say—her Cabinet colleagues did not receive premature or unauthorised information about what was in the report, or about the private proceedings of the Committee?

Mrs. Beckett: I received no such information, nor indeed am I aware of the slightest evidence that any member of the Government did so. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes such an allegation. I am aware that some concern was expressed in the Committee about the unauthorised release of information—but not by Labour Members. The issue should be handled with more caution. The Government will, of course, respond in the fulness of time to the Select Committee report, which has only just appeared. It remains to be seen whether the issue as a whole will be dealt with accurately. On the "Today" programme this morning, I heard the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) make the astonishing assertion that the Labour party brought in the student loan system. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was 10 years ago, when the Conservatives introduced that scheme, but if we cannot have higher standards of accuracy than that, our debates will certainly be carried out with increasing difficulty.

Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend is of course aware of the remarks made nearly two weeks ago by the father of Damilola Taylor—that this country needs to address an agenda of moral regeneration. Does she agree that the House should take that matter seriously and that, because of those events, it is incumbent on the Government to find time to consider ways that we can respond constructively to that viewpoint?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I know that the whole House was impressed by Mr. Taylor's anxieties and concerns and sympathises with him in his sorrow. I do not anticipate being able to find time for a debate on that specific matter in the near future. However, perhaps during the days and weeks ahead, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary turns his attention to the outlook and to the changes that we propose to roll forward in our agenda for handling crime and offences—not least among the young—some opportunity will arise to focus on the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, during Prime Minister's questions, in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the Prime Minister said that there had been 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since the Government came into office. The video recording clearly shows that he said 500,000, yet in the Official Report, at column 921, the figure has been changed from 500,000 to 5,000. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for a figure to be changed in that way? How may I ensure that the record is changed to show the correct figure stated by the Prime Minister, and that the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House to explain why the record was changed and why his Government have failed to deliver on their pledge to increase numbers in further and higher education?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Prime Minister was misreported by Hansard. There was no request from the Prime Minister to alter the figure he gave the House. A correction will be published tomorrow.

Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know from the Order Paper, we are about to be asked to take a decision, without debate, on a new programme motion for consideration in Standing Committee of the Hunting Bill. Is it at all possible for time to be provided for a debate, or at least for a statement from a responsible Minister, as to the reasons why the Government are changing the terms of their programme? That is especially important, given that this is the first occasion on which the Government have had to change programming arrangements in that way. Surely, that demonstrates to everyone in the House that the idea that one can anticipate, in advance of a Standing Committee's proceedings, how many sittings will be needed for adequate consideration of a Bill is utterly mistaken.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will not then need to take it further.
Under the terms of the Sessional Order, Questions on supplementary programme motions to increase time for debate on a Bill are put forthwith. The Hunting Bill (Programme) (No. 3) motion extends the time for the Committee, so what is set out on the Order Paper is perfectly proper.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does my answer help the hon. Gentleman? Is he rising to speak further to that point of order?

Mr. Leigh: As ever, Mr. Speaker, you have been most helpful. However, given that every other programmed Bill

as been ruthlessly dispatched in Standing Committee and sent back to us, I wonder why the Hunting Bill alone has been allowed to meander quietly around the English countryside of the Standing Committees. Has that happened because the Government do not really want the Bill ever to see the light of day?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If any clarification is given about the extra sittings of Standing Committee B, could it be made clear that the motion was introduced by agreement and upon representations from Conservative Members, and that that is the fundamental reason why the sittings are being reprogrammed?

Mr. Speaker: Once again, that is not a matter for me.

Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have recently learned that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Dr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I learned today that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, has called for my resignation from the Committee, apparently, for opposing the majority report. May I ask you to confirm that members of Select Committees are appointed by the House to scrutinise the Government and that it is not appropriate for the Chairman of a Select Committee, whose job it is to try to create consensus, to make such a decision or, indeed, to express such an opinion? I apologise for giving you short notice of this point of order, but I notified the hon. Gentleman's office about half an hour ago that I hoped to raise the issue with you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. He was appointed by the House, and that appointment will cease only by a decision of the House.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the Prime Minister yesterday set a two-year timetable for the abolition of the pound and the merger of this country's economy with those of continental Europe. Given that all the indications are that over the past two years public opinion has hardened from a two to one majority in favour of keeping the pound to more than three to one in favour of keeping the pound, have you received any notification of a ministerial statement, perhaps to be made by the Minister for Europe, on whether or not the hoped for turnaround could be funded—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been no such approach to me. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to rise, but you heard the altercation between those on the two Front Benches during the points of order on the


Hunting Bill. May I ask you whether you could advise those Conservative Members who were party to the arrangements on those proceedings that they might consider their position, since the usual channels arrangement depends on the truth being told at all times? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) has set out precisely what happened. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) should clarify the position at the Dispatch Box. Unless they do so today, there may be implications for the way in which the Bill is handled during the next week or two.

Mr. Speaker: I keep well away from matters regarding the usual channels.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be most grateful to you for your guidance. Would you be good enough to confirm to the House that the fact that the Hunting Bill (Programme) (No. 3) motion, on extending the time for debate, is not eligible for debate in no way precludes us from saying that, although the extension of time is welcome, it is patently inadequate for the consideration of the remaining new clauses and amendments to the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit rusty; that was not a point of order.

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I have not had an opportunity to give you notice of this point of order, but the information has only just come into my possession. A little while ago, at Education and Employment questions, I asked a Minister about concerns involving the future funding of education business links and was told that the Secretary of State had made an announcement on the matter today.
I have since discovered that the Department issued a press notice on the matter at 10.25 this morning, only an hour before questions to the Department for Education and Employment were due to start. The information was sneaked out, and not in a parliamentary answer. Sufficient time was not given to Members on both sides to become aware of the press notice's contents, and that made it impossible for me and other Members to question the Minister about whether there had been a cut in funding. I believe that there has been a cut of at least 20 per cent. I should also have liked the opportunity to ask whether the additional funding announced will be ring-fenced or will be discretionary funding for the Learning and Skills

Council. Is it not the case that you, Mr. Speaker, deprecate the practice of sneaking out in press notices information that should come to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have taken many points of order, and the business of the House takes priority.

Mr. Simpson: My point of order is about the business of the House which we shall have to consider shortly. As a member of the Committee considering the Hunting Bill, I am somewhat confused about how the matter has come back to the House. Presumably it was discussed by the usual channels, who presumably agreed that the House should authorise further time for the Bill's consideration in Committee. I do not understand where the points of conflict and contention arise when such agreements are brought back to the House as a matter of consensus. As a member of the Committee, I would welcome your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on where and how this practice should be properly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not worry about confusion; I get confused every day of the week. I cannot help him on this point.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does this matter not show the very reason why Programming Sub-Committees should not meet in secret? We have asked that they do not meet in secret, but the Government insist that they do. If the Committees were to be open, there would be no circumstances in which misunderstandings could take place.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must stop the discussion now, because we are now getting into a debate. Let us move on to the main business.

HUNTING BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 20 December 2000],
That the Order of 20th December 2000 (Hunting Bill (Programme)) be amended by the substitution in paragraph 5 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) of the words 'Tuesday 13th February 2001' for the words 'Thursday 8th February 2001'. — [Mr. Touhig.]

Question agreed to.

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23rd January:

Consideration and Third Reading

1.Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2.Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Three o'clock.

3.Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at a quarter past Four o'clock.

4.Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

5.Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement or vary this order in relation to—

(a)proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
(b)proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The motion proposes that the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting, with consideration concluding by 3.30 pm and Third Reading at 4.15 pm.

The Bill gives companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000 early—in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that wish to use this measure will calculate the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7 November 2000—the day before the pre-Budget statement when the proposals were announced. They will be required to notify the Inland Revenue and pay the appropriate amount within 92 days of Royal Assent to the Bill. That effectively caps the national insurance contribution liability by reference to the company's share price on 7 November, so providing the company with certainty.

Our debates in Committee were brief but purposeful. The Opposition introduced worthwhile amendments, and we were happy to accept the main thrust of some of them. In particular, we accepted that the deadline for sending the notification and paying the special charge under the Bill should be extended from 60 to 92 days. We tabled an amendment in Committee in response to the Opposition request that companies with a nil liability to the special contribution should not have to go to the trouble of lodging a formal notification within the 92-day deadline. Under our amendment, such companies will be deemed to have lodged formal notice within the set period. Both those changes will help to reduce the burden of

compliance for companies and will allow all companies whose liability for the special contribution would be nil to qualify automatically.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I need to point out that we are dealing with the programme motion, not the Bill itself.

Mr. Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point that I wanted to make was that all the Opposition amendments, except one, were withdrawn. Today we are introducing nine amendments which I will commend to the House, all of which respond to points raised in Committee with the intention of making the Bill more effective. None of them changes the policy intention that was fully discussed in one Committee sitting. In view of that, I believe that consideration and report can be concluded within the time set out in the programme motion. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Howard Flight: The House is aware that the Conservative Opposition disapprove of programme motions in principle for two reasons: first, because it is unknown what Members may have to contribute and, secondly, because it cannot easily be known what will be required in terms of a thorough analysis of and debate on proposals.
The Minister correctly pointed out that there was a constructive exchange in Committee and that the Government have one way or another taken in most of the issues and amendments that the Opposition proposed. However, clause 3, for example, is highly technical and is about what the arrangements will be in relation to national insurance charges when companies are taken over. Yesterday I received the Government's redrafts, and it was the evening before I could check out their precise implications with lawyers. It is apparent that they contain drafting errors and so will need more attention than just a few minutes during the forthcoming debate.
This is a classic example of circumstances in which, even with a relatively focused piece of legislation and with most of the material having been dealt with in Committee, the whole concept of programmed timetables does not work. If the programming arrangements are adhered to, the result will be not enough time for discussion of important, nitty-gritty clauses and, potentially, more time than needed on Third Reading later. Therefore, although we appreciate the Minister's acceptance of the various points that we raised, we do not feel that programming Bills is a good idea in principle. Even in this particular focused circumstance, yet again the motion is shown not to be delivering what is in the interests of the House and the country.

Mr. John Burnett: The Government amendments conceded in Committee were helpful and it would be churlish to say that the Bill is not welcome. It caps liability at 7 November 2000, but is certainly not perfect and leaves much to be desired. Improvements can and should be made. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs


(Mr. Flight) mentioned, detailed further clauses have been tabled which need careful, rigorous scrutiny. The Bill deserves that scrutiny.
Hon. Members must realise that the Bill impacts on many companies in most constituencies. Many hon. Members may want to speak about the merits or otherwise of the Bill and about the amendments that the Government have tabled.
The Government have asserted that the quid pro quo for certainty—that is, fixing the employers' national insurance contributions for unapproved share option schemes as at 7 November 2000—is to fix that liability on that date with payments to be made shortly thereafter. There are other views which deserve consideration by and a response from Ministers. Some hon. Members will be concerned about bureaucracy and unnecessary Government expenditure. I have put to the Minister a satisfactory solution which would be simple and would provide value for money. Why not leave the liability open until exercise of the option, and then leave it open to companies to pay national insurance contributions either on the basis of the 7 November 2000 value or the value on the date on which the option is exercised? That is simple—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the argument about the contents of the Bill. We are discussing the programme motion.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Members are likely to want to raise matters of bureaucracy and of fairness to taxpayers. These are important matters that deserve long debate and significant consideration. We shall oppose the motion.

Mr. Eric Forth: It has become apparent that each programme motion raises different issues about the approach that the Government have taken to programming under "modernisation". We are embarking on a voyage of parliamentary discovery. It started with the idea that life should be made easier for parliamentarians, especially Labour Members. It was thought that everything should be done more quickly and that scrutiny should be truncated. The idea has developed from there.
We see in each instance—this is a good case in point—that such an approach is entirely inappropriate to the parliamentary process. We now know—we should have known before—that each Bill is sui generis. It stands on its own and has a different character, history and personality. Members come to the Chamber with tales of what happened in their Committee: they may talk of consensuality, joviality and other good news.
We find that the Government's explanation for a vicious truncation of the parliamentary process tends to be different in each case. In this instance, we are told that we are dealing with a relatively small and technical Bill, that there is not much to be discussed, and that what went on in Committee may or may not have been very productive. However, it is about 1.45 pm and we are debating an absurd motion which states that consideration on Report will be completed at 3.30 pm. That would be bad enough, but we know that the programme debate can run for 45 minutes.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has said that he believes there will be a Division, and I will join him in that. I hope that I have the opportunity to do so. It is possible that we shall not even get to on to Report until 2.30 pm. The Government are generously giving us until 3.30 pm to complete consideration on Report.
Optimists among Members may say, "There are only three groups of amendments to be considered." They may also say, "There are only"—as I count—"10 amendments to be considered." Even so, one hour divided by 10 gives us six minutes per amendment. I do not know what your view is, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we shall never know because you are not allowed to express it—but I suggest that six minutes is adequate for the House to consider an amendment to proposed law that deals with social security contributions and share options and will have a direct impact on many people's lives. Yet the Government have the gall and the arrogance to suggest that six minutes per amendment will be adequate.
There are 660 Members, and from that membership we can take away the bloated payroll, which probably runs now at about 150. We can take away also the members of the bloated Opposition Front Bench, which probably accounts for another 100. There are probably about 400 Members who are entitled to express an independent view on these matters. If we divide six minutes by 400, we have an idea of the amount of time that the Government are suggesting each Member has, potentially, to participate in a debate on these matters. That is a reductio, but not ad absurdum.
I am giving those figures to try to make the point that this is possibly the best—or, rather, the worst—example to date of the Government's view of the role of the parliamentary process, a Bill's Report stage and the role of the House of Commons in considering legislative proposals. Programme motions are simply legislative proposals, and embody what the Government think should happen. They are discussed in a Committee, and the whole House is here now to consider a particular programme motion. By my calculation—unless anyone wishes to challenge me—six minutes is the time that the Government are suggesting is available for each matter.
If we voted on Report, the Government seem to suggest—again, by my calculation—that we would have 30 minutes, from 3.45 pm until 4.15 pm, for Third Reading. Third Reading provides an opportunity for all hon. Members to come together and give mature consideration to the totality of a Bill that they have discussed on Second Reading and which a privileged few have looked at in Committee. We have gathered together now to look at a particular Bill on Report. However, on Third Reading, all hon. Members who have been unable to participate so far can come to the House of Commons and say what they want about a Bill, knowing its final form.
The Government are now telling us that we will have 30 minutes to do all of that; not 30 minutes each, but 30 minutes for the entire House of Commons to consider a piece of legislation on Third Reading. Surely, that illustrates better than most things thus far the absurdity and arrogance of the Government—as well as the cruelty that they are inflicting on the parliamentary process—
in assuming that that is an adequate period in which to legislate on a matter which, although detailed and technical, is nevertheless important.

Mr. Burnett: Because the matter is detailed and technical, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it deserves careful scrutiny? Having detailed and technical provisions tabled last night is unacceptable. Does he agree that there is not enough time for careful scrutiny of these important matters?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has led me into the next part of my analysis. I gave a rather dry consideration of the inadequacy of the numbers involved. However, the hon. Gentleman made a valid point, from which two inter-related points follow.
First, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) both made the point that the Government assumed that the Committee stage would be completed at a certain point, only to introduce further provisions and peremptorily insist that the House deal with them with almost no notice. That is difficult, and not only for ordinary Members of Parliament. For goodness sake, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs is a world expert on these matters, but even he is struggling a bit. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon is an intellectual giant of the House, but he is struggling. What hope is there of us poor laymen, who have come to the House to try and grapple with the matter on behalf of our constituents, dealing with the technicalities involved?

Mr. Burnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of another example of this sort of detailed legislation being rushed—the Finance Act 1998? Detailed amendments were tabled on stamp duty, reserve tax and anti-avoidance measures. However, they were wrong and the Government lost revenue to the tune of £1 billion or £1.5 billion because of the inadequacy of debate and scrutiny.

Mr. Forth: I am not surprised or shocked by that. The hon. Gentleman strengthened his point and illustrated it well. We run that risk if we are rolled over by the Government, as they are now attempting to do.
The motion is surrounded by an accumulation of negatives and, as far as I can see, no positives whatever. The time made available to the House for considering the Bill on Report and Third Reading has been compressed. Almost no notice was given—and that is true not just for hon. Members. As has already been said, with such a Bill one would have thought there should be an opportunity for legitimate representations to be made by outside bodies to those of us who are privileged to be here, so that we can learn from them and understand their concerns. There is no such opportunity, given the Bill's time scale.
My query about all this is why the Government persist in offering wording such as:
Proceedings on Consideration shall…be brought to a conclusion at half past Three o'clock.
What is the hurry? It would be bad enough if the Government had insisted, as they do in respect of the Committee stage, that we would be given, say, six hours

to consider the Bill on Report, or four hours, or whatever. Today, rightly, as usual, Mr. Speaker generously allowed some time for business questions. The Government are lucky that there was no Division on the grubby deal that was done on the Hunting Bill. By setting a time of 3.30 pm for the conclusion of proceedings, rather than allowing us a specific amount of time, the Government have made us victims of the vagaries of the parliamentary process.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: We are fortunate that there was not a Government statement, a private notice question or a response to some disaster in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—

Mr. Forth: Or in the Government.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed—there is one of those every day. Any of those eventualities would have required the attention of the House, and would have further compressed the time available for these matters to be discussed.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. By taking such an approach—tabling motions that specify a particular time of the clock at which matters must be concluded—the Government make us a potential victim of what Harold Macmillan described as "events". Events do impinge on the parliamentary process, as indeed they should and they must.
The Government make the crude assumption that we will be able to dispatch the Report stage properly by 3.30, regardless of what may have happened during the parliamentary day up until that point. They go on to compound the felony by proposing that Third Reading will be finished by "quarter past Four o'clock." They do not give us a certain amount of time to consider the matter, bad enough though that would be. They make matters worse by saying that proceedings will end, willy-nilly, at a particular time of the clock.
The Government obviously take the view that it does not matter what may have happened up till now today. Regardless of any of that—regardless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, of statements, private notice questions being granted and the length of time allowed by Mr. Speaker for business questions—we will complete consideration by 3.30 pm.
That cannot be right. It cannot be a proper parliamentary process. I regret to say that it illustrates yet again the approach that the Government take to Parliament—one of utter contempt. It could just be a misunderstanding of Parliament, I suppose, because some members of the Government have not been in the House very long. Some of them make no secret of the fact that, having got here, they want to leave the building as early and as frequently as possible. Although that may be a family-friendly approach, it does not exactly help the role of the House of Commons in giving proper scrutiny to legislation and holding the Government to account.
We are in a real mess, and the motion illustrates that all too well.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am genuinely shocked, even by the standards of this arrogant and inconsiderate


Administration, that Ministers apparently envisage a Third Reading debate lasting a maximum of 45 minutes. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government expect any significant contribution from Back Benchers in that allotted time?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. I had calculated 30 minutes for Third Reading, but we shall wait and see. The Government are assuming that their Back Benchers will play no part in the debate at all, as they increasingly do.
There are currently no Government Back Benchers in the Chamber. That is a sad reflection of what has happened to Government Members of Parliament and Government Back Benchers. I wonder what their constituents think they are doing at this time on a Thursday? I leave that for their constituents to muse on. They are certainly not representing them in the House of Commons—that we do know because the physical evidence is plain to see. I leave that as a matter of speculation.
I had intended to go on and comment on the further proceedings on the Bill, which are alluded to in the motion, but I am aware that a number of my parliamentary colleagues are present, in their place, representing their constituents—

Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I will, but I am anxious to conclude.

Mr. Jack: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would develop his further point. As the Financial Secretary said, nine Government amendments have been tabled, which means that we are allowed to consider each for 10 minutes. Such timing is sparse in respect of the complex matters that are involved. Does my right hon. Friend think that we have adequate time to consider each of the amendments?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is generous. I calculated that we were allowed six minutes for each amendment. I shall not repeat my rough calculation of how the time will be squeezed by a combination of events, including votes and other considerations.
I shall conclude my remarks, as I am aware of the pressure from the large number of Opposition Members who want to contribute and I do not want to hog the available time. I believe that the motion is probably the worst example yet of the results of the ill-thought-out and ill-considered so-called modernisation process that has inflicted such a disgraceful programming scheme. I hope that it will illustrate to everybody that that scheme is an unworkable and unjustifiable outrage that should be dropped as soon as possible. In the meantime, I hope that I will get a chance to vote against the motion.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am not against programming in principle and have argued on a number of occasions that it has some merit. However, I agreed today with almost everything that he said.
A first-rate Minister has had to introduce a third-rate Bill. It is a shoddy measure that has been torn apart by the clear-headedness of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is probably the only hon. Member who understands what it is all about. It is a small and technical Bill, but as has been pointed out, it affects a large number of people. Everybody agrees that it is flawed. I think that the Financial Secretary will admit that that is the case and confirm that clause 3 is still deficient and needs further attention. Currently, he appears to be neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me. I cannot tell what he is expressing, but I suspect that it is agreement.
We are now stuck with an awkward situation and we do not have much time to try to sort it out. Programming makes life no better. The Bill will go to the other place, where the Government will take a bit more time to try to sort it out and table the necessary amendments. Their attitude is clear. They put a Bill into play in the House of Commons to get it running. It does not matter how shoddy it is or how much it is shredded in Committee. They get it out of here on the back of a programme motion and then sort it out in the House of Lords, where the political temperature is a bit lower and they will not have to deal with so much flak. I do not think that that is a good way of making legislation, and neither does anybody else, except the Executive, and an arrogant Executive at that.
As I said, I would not have been against programming this measure in principle. If it is to be used, however, hon. Members must have something in return in terms of better pre-legislative scrutiny. I cannot believe that the Bill would have been brought before the House in its current condition if it had been given thoroughgoing pre-legislative scrutiny and had been considered by a Committee that could ask detailed questions of the few people in the country who understand the subject with which it deals.
Programming has been introduced to the House without anything being given in return. Scrutiny of legislation has not been improved through other means and no commitment has been made to improve pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why I disapprove of what the Government have done in respect of programming. I oppose not the principle, but the fact that it was introduced without any sense of balance in respect of better scrutiny of legislation in the House of Commons.
Let us cast our minds back to the last shift in power that was as dramatic as the adoption of programming. Timetabling was introduced in the late 19th century, but was accompanied by a big quid pro quo: Supply days. The current Government have decided to introduce a major shift in the way in which legislation is scrutinised without offering anything in return to the House of Commons to try to improve legislation or demonstrate to the wider public that they are doing their job properly. Anyone viewing the Chamber today—and I hope that the cameras will be permitted to pan the Labour Benches for just a moment—will see that absolutely no scrutiny of the Executive is going on. This is really not an adequate performance.
As I said, Supply days were introduced in return for acceptance of Balfour's railway timetable; but when we accepted Beckett's railway timetable we were given nothing in return, which is why I shall vote against the motion.

2 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join my colleagues in opposing the motion.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I am opposed in principle to so-called programme motions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Guillotines.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed, they are effectively guillotines. The fact that they are undemocratic, curtailing Members' opportunity to hold the Executive to account, has been amply demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester.
Today's Order Paper illustrates the fatuous nature of programme motions. It features no fewer than three guillotines—if I may bow to the description preferred by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—and I think the first justifies our complaints. In the motion that we are discussing, and also in the others, the Government seek to impose not so much time limits as a schedule specifying the time by which we shall be deemed to have completed consideration of what are, in some instances, complex matters. The first motion, for example, shows the fatuousness of the original proposal that proceedings on the Hunting Bill should be completed by a certain time, because the Government must now return to the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I realise that he could not be here for the opening speeches, but we are discussing a specific programme motion relating to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill, and he must confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Howarth: I was trying to illustrate my opposition to programme motions in general, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I take your point.
I wonder how many more times the Government will come back to the House and ask us to amend an earlier programme motion. Clearly, that will not happen in this case, as the motion we are discussing relates only to consideration and Third Reading—and, of course, to consideration of Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords. I must confess that I am not sure what all that means: the wording is couched in references to such and such paragraphs of the ghastly Sessional Order that is the fount of all the misery we are having to endure as a result of the Government's determination to curtail debate in the House.
We are discussing an extremely important Bill. Although I have considerable experience of the City and international banking, I do not claim to be an expert in the particularities of the share-options issues that lie behind the Bill. Fortunately for us—not just Conservative Members, but Members throughout the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has such expertise. He bears testimony to the value of Members who have worked in the real world and bring experience of it to the House. Such experience is especially likely to inform debates on such matters as share options, in which my hon. Friend is extremely well versed. It could also be said that his expertise makes the

case for Members' maintaining familiarity with such issues by having outside interests—but I will not pursue that point.
The Bill constitutes the Government's second attempt to reform their own legislation. Having failed to produce a sensible measure earlier, they have had to return to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that the Minister is an extremely good Minister; it is just a shame that he is in the wrong party. But the fact that he is such a good Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems unable to concentrate on the motion. Interesting and complimentary though some of his asides have been, they are not relevant to the matter before us.

Mr. Howarth: I hesitate to compliment you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I entirely accept your guidance.
This is a complex matter that should have proper scrutiny. I object in principle to programme motions, and I object in particular to this one.

Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give some thought to how such a first-rate Minister could end up introducing such a shoddy Bill and still be unable to get it straight? Does my hon. Friend think that programming is the right way to try to force through such a Bill in these circumstances?

Mr. Howarth: Such matters will always be conducted for the convenience of Governments. We should not forget that there were guillotine motions when we were in government. There will always be rational arguments that will persuade Ministers to support guillotine motions, or programme motions, as we now call them.
I am sure that, even if the Minister wanted to spend more time properly assessing and discussing the issues with hon. Members, he would nevertheless be under pressure not to do so, but to comply with the requirements of the sewers of Westminster, as they are known collectively—not the Minister, of course—to ensure that the Government get through their business as quickly as possible, regardless of whether it has had proper scrutiny in the House.

Mr. Michael Jack: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and to the House for not being here at the start of this important item of business. I was able, by another means, to follow some of the Minister's introduction to the programme motion.
I am disappointed that a piece of business dealing with social security and national insurance issues should be introduced by a Treasury Minister. Up to now, most business of this nature has proceeded on an amicable, nay, even consensual, basis in the House of Commons. Since I have been in the House, I have been involved, from the Government and the Opposition Benches, with five Finance Bills and each one has managed to achieve its objectives by agreements through the usual channels. Some of the contents of those Bills have touched on, or dealt with, the issues in this measure.
However, we are now debating a programme motion on a matter that is clearly not of great controversy between the two Front Benches, in terms of the principle,


at this stage. However, the drafting and objectives of the Bill require further debate, and I shall come to those points in a moment. It is sad that the programme motion breaks away from an important point of tradition on the way in which financial matters such as these have always been dealt with.
I had always thought that the reason for introducing a programme motion—or guillotine motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said—was that the Government of the day had been filibustered or were in danger of not completing their business. Under the procedures introduced, and in the context of this type of measure, that risk is not there. The Government seem to be on auto-pilot, in that we have to go through this process every time a piece of business is introduced. There is no selectivity. There is no trust between the two sides of the House that some business will pass unimpeded, without the need to impose this rigidity on us.
Why do I object to the programme motion before us today? The debate is scheduled to end at 2.17 pm. By 3.30 this afternoon, or half-past three of the clock as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) more correctly describes it, we are supposed to have considered nine detailed Government amendments. They may improve the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: How will we know?

Mr. Jack: That is a good question, which leads me to my central point. The Government amendments amount to a fundamental rewrite of clause 3. Yet there is inadequate time for us to probe more thoroughly the failings of any pre-legislative consultation exercise on the Bill. In earlier proceedings, the Government made much of the fact that the Bill had been introduced because of representations from third parties. There is not enough time for us to discover what went wrong between the receipt of those representations, the original drafting and the effective rewrite of clause 3. There is insufficient time to consider the failings in policy development or draftsmanship.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend know of any Bill since the Queen's Speech that has been subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure? Would it not be better for more Bills to be subject to such scrutiny? Perhaps they would not need to be timetabled if that happened.

Mr. Jack: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, although pre-legislative scrutiny provides an opportunity for technical measures such as the Bill to be considered in detail, it should never replace proper, thorough debate and scrutiny in the Chamber and in Committee. A Bill will be introduced on capital allowances shortly. Although it will have received a great deal of input from outside opinion, that does not remove the right and role of the House to scrutinise.
Given the detail in some Government amendments, which I am sure my hon. Friend has considered, there is insufficient opportunity to consider their implications. Although is not right to debate Government amendment No. 3 now, let me just point out that it introduces proposed new section 4A, which establishes labyrinthine

interconnections. It would take a good two hours for even an excellent Financial Secretary to explain, for example, how the Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the various connections between sections 135 and 136 relate to the proposals.
The wording in the amendment is tortuous. The tax law rewrite exercise has shone little light on it. I should have liked at least a quarter of an hour to probe the Financial Secretary about the reason for such tortuous language. I should like another hour to take him, with meticulous care, through some of the reasoning behind rewriting so much of the Bill.
An advantage of Report is that it gives hon. Members who have not served on the Standing Committee the opportunity to hear in detail the reasons for tabling further amendments.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the way in which matters are proceeding, with a probable Division shortly, there will be an hour in total to consider nine or 10 important amendments? That leaves six minutes for hon. Members to discuss each amendment. My right hon. Friend will get less time than that. That does not approach the amount of time that he estimates he requires.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is right. If we take account of other matters that need consideration, there is even less time than he estimates. It is bad form to deal with detailed technical matters in that way.
Pepper v. Hart is often cited in the context of detailed Bills. It gives the legal profession the opportunity to use our proceedings in court or other tribunals to help to show the true meaning of a measure. If we have only six minutes to discuss each amendment, and the Financial Secretary wants to go into detail about some of them, those who seek to use the facility of Pepper v. Hart will have scant information on which to draw.
For those reasons, the time allocated for the amendments is inadequate, and I shall have no hesitation in joining my hon. Friends in the Lobby to oppose the motion.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 124.

Division No.111]
[2.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Borrow, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allen, Graham



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon


Atherton, Ms Candy
(Dunfermline E)


Austin, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bailey, Adrian
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Banks, Tony
Browne, Desmond


Barnes, Harry



Barron, Kevin
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Battle, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Berry, Roger
Caplin, Ivor


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cawsey, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)






Clapham, Michael
Hope, Phil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hoyle, Lindsay


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Coaker, Vernon
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Coleman, Iain
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cox, Tom
Joyce, Eric


Cranston, Ross
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cummings, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kemp, Fraser


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Lammy, David


(B'ham Hodge H)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dismore, Andrew
Lock, David


Dobbin, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Dowd, Jim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Drown, Ms Julia
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonnell, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McFall, John


Edwards, Huw
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McIsaac, Shona


Ennis, Jeff
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Etherington, Bill
McNulty, Tony


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fisher, Mark
McWalter, Tony


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McWilliam, John


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Follett, Barbara
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meale, Alan


Gardiner, Barry
Merron, Gillian


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gibson, Dr Ian
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Mitchell, Austin


Goggins, Paul
Moran, Ms Margaret


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
(B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Grocott, Bruce
(Aberavon)


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hanson, David
Norris, Dan


Healey, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hendrick, Mark
Olner, Bill


Hepburn, Stephen
Organ, Mrs Diana


Heppell, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pearson, Ian


Hill, Keith
Perham, Ms Linda


Hinchliffe, David
Pickthall, Colin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Plaskitt, James


Hoey, Kate
Pollard, Kerry





Pond, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pope, Greg
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pound, Stephen
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Prosser, Gwyn
(Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quinn, Lawrie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rammell, Bill
Timms, Stephen


Rapson, Syd
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Robertson, John
Truswell, Paul


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tynan, Bill


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sawford, Phil
Wareing, Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
(Swansea W)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Soley, Clive
Wyatt, Derek


Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Clive Betts.


Stevenson, George



NOES


Allan, Richard
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Foster, Don (Bath)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam


Ballard, Jackie
Fraser, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A J
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bercow, John
Gibb, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Gidley, Sandra


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gray, James


Brady, Graham
Green, Damian


Brand, Dr Peter
Greenway, John


Brazier, Julian
Hammond, Philip


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hayes, John


Burnett, John
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burstow, Paul
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cable, Dr Vincent
Horam, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


(Chipping Barnet)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


(Rushcliffe)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Collins, Tim
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Cran, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Leigh, Edward


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Letwin, Oliver


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Livsey, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fallon, Michael
Loughton, Tim






Luff, Peter
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Stunell, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Sir Teddy


May, Mrs Theresa
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Moore, Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John


Norman, Archie
Tredinnick, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Trend, Michael


Öpik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul


Page, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Paice, James
Walter, Robert


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Prior, David
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Rendel, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


St Aubyn, Nick



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton- Brown.


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to. Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23rd January:

Consideration and Third Reading

1.Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2.Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Three o'clock.

3.Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at a quarter past Four o'clock.

4.Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

5.Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement or vary this order in relation to—

(a)proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
(b)proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1

NOTICES RELATING TO SHARE OPTIONS ACQUIRED BEFORE 19TH MAY 2000

Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—
'(7) For the purposes of this Act only, a right to acquire relevant shares will be deemed to give rise to a liability of nil under section 2 below.
(8) In subsection (7) above relevant shares are shares which on 7th November 2000 were neither listed on a recognised stock exchange nor traded on a recognised investment exchange.'.
I should like first to declare that I am a director of companies with outstanding option schemes, none of which are covered by the Bill's provisions. More importantly, in the past 15 months, I have been participating in a major study among leading members of the industry to determine how the United Kingdom can achieve higher levels of venture capital investment in new businesses. Although the study has focused on a very wide range of issues, I think that it has concluded that the issue of options and the UK options tax regimes are absolutely central to understanding the performance differential between the United Kingdom and the United States. As I shall explain later, the Bill is an important part of addressing that issue.
Although Opposition Members are happy that the Government accepted most of the key points that we made in Committee, we are particularly unhappy that, even in the Government's second attempt, their proposals to deal with takeover and roll-over situations are not the correct ones to fulfil what we perceive to be Ministers' intentions.
In Committee, we welcomed the Government's deeming amendment, which dealt with our point that a lot of time and money would have been wasted if a determination—or deeming—that companies are not subject to the special national insurance contribution liability is not made automatically on the due date. The amendment would also help greatly to avoid potential unfairness to smaller and foreign companies that were perhaps not even aware of the new special NIC charge on options issued between April 1999 and May 2000. However, although the Government's change is welcome, we believe that there is still a grey area and the potential for problems which could very easily be avoided.
The issue is whether options relate to shares deemed to be readily convertible assets—which is the key phrase. In the Government's arrangements, if the option is under water or the shares in question are not readily convertible assets, there would be no special NIC liability. The situation applying last November, however, is old history. For the purposes of the deeming provision, therefore, our amendment proposes not defining shares as readily convertible assets if they were not listed or traded on a recognised stock exchange or market on 7 November 2000.
If amendment No. 10 is not accepted, a potential problem is that private companies will assume that they are covered by the deeming provision. Consequently, they could fail to provide due notice. Those companies could become involved in a subsequent, never-ending debate with the Revenue on whether the assets were readily convertible assets on 7 November. If the Revenue found that the companies' shares were readily convertible assets, they would have forgone the opportunity of availing themselves of the Government's relieving provision.

Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that he had spent time in consultation with companies that use share option. Was amendment No. 10 therefore also born of practical considerations and his discussions with those companies?

Mr. Flight: Yes, it was. I have endeavoured to consult very fully on all the Bill's clauses both with members of the venture capital industry and with lawyers specialising in share options, with the simple and pragmatic purpose of trying to create a regime that is good and not damaging for the United Kingdom economy.
The amendment's proposed arrangements would affect only this legislation and are not intended to address the wider issue of how to define a readily convertible asset. They are not intended to have knock-on effects on other legislative provisions.
There is a grey area when a private company is approaching flotation and its flotation date and market price have not been established. However, I am sure that the House will agree that, for the particular purposes of this Bill, setting 7 November as the target cut-off date is just as realistic a quid pro quo as that enshrined in the Bill—which tells employees to take a gamble and pay the special NIC charge so that companies do not subsequently have excessive NIC liabilities that could not be met.
The amendment is a very practical proposal. It would have minimal revenue implications and help to prevent the possibility of unfairness and wasted time.

Mr. John Burnett: Liberal Democrat Members support the amendment, which is a move towards simplicity. If an asset is not listed on the specified date, it would not be deemed a readily convertible asset, and therefore not be subject to the special charge to national insurance contributions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendment. Surely the thrust of the legislation is that the special NIC charge should not affect unapproved share option schemes in private companies. By definition, a private company is one that restricts the transfer or sale of its shares.
I am a solicitor, and I specialised in taxation matters. However, I do not practise as such now. I also did not do an awful lot of work on approved or unapproved share option schemes. I spent some time in the shares valuation division, and as I said in Committee, share valuation is very much an art, not a science. A lot of deeming takes place and there is enormous scope for disagreement and negotiation.
The Government are content for shares that are not readily convertible to escape the special national insurance contribution liability. I hope that the Minister

will confirm that and elaborate in detail on the Government's objections to the amendment. Do they fear that it may, in some obscure way, lead to tax avoidance? I do not believe that it will, but I will wait to hear from the Minister before offering any rebuttal. Is their point that it will discourage listing, and therefore investment?
If the Minister rejects the amendment, I hope that he will give compelling reasons, because I consider it to be worth while, simple and straightforward.

Mr. Jack: I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a company that has both approved and non-approved share option schemes, although it does not fall under the scope of the amendment.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the amendment would bring clarity, but if I were in the Minister's shoes, following what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said, I would want, if I intended to reject the amendment, to cover areas such as anti-avoidance and what would happen if people with share options in a non-quoted company knew that a takeover was coming and that convertibility would come into play.

Mr. Flight: The amendment relates to history, so it has nothing to do with tax avoidance measures that people might get up to in the future. It relates purely to the position on 7 November 2000.

Mr. Jack: I posed hypothetical questions in the hope of getting the Minister to explain his position. He may offer us emotive arguments. My hon. Friend's central point of clarity of purpose makes the amendment attractive. People need to know where they stand in this complex area, and the amendment is very helpful.
The amendment refers to "a recognised stock exchange", and most people would understand that, but "a recognised investment exchange", to which it also refers, is a little more obscure. It is sometimes hard to keep up with all the newly emerging markets. Will the Minister give us his views in careful and meticulous order? I hope that he will simply say that the Government accept the amendment, but we certainly want to know his reasons either way.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am happy to provide the House with that explanation. I do not believe that the amendment represents a simplification, as Opposition Members have suggested. Indeed, it would introduce a new and unhelpful complication.
The national insurance and PAYE rules on share options were aligned in 1999, so that from that date the PAYE rules effectively determine the national insurance liability. PAYE applies only to shares and options that are readily convertible assets. Shares not falling within that description are not taxed under the PAYE rules, nor are they liable to national insurance charges.
The amendment would narrow the definition of readily convertible assets, but only for the purposes of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs


(Mr. Flight) confirmed that he did not intend to change the definition in other parts of the system. That is an unnecessary complication.

Mr. Jack: What is the definition of a readily convertible asset and how does the amendment narrow it?

Mr. Timms: What I can best do is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Inland Revenue website, which I have no doubt he visits frequently, and in particular to tax bulletin issue 36, which explains the matter in great detail. Of course, a readily convertible asset is one that can be converted to cash and—

Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, when a Member of the House asks a straightforward question, to refer him to a technical asset that is not immediately available to Members to find the information that is required?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The right hon. Gentleman has long experience of the House and is a former Minister, and he should know that it is not a matter for the Chair how a Minister chooses to answer a question. It is a matter for debate.

Mr. Timms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little hurt by the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, as I was trying to be helpful to him in explaining that a readily convertible asset is one that can be readily converted to cash and is therefore appropriate to be taxed. That is well understood. The amendment would narrow that so that a share in any unlisted company would be deemed not to be a readily convertible asset. To have two definitions floating around in different parts of the tax system would be an unwelcome and unhelpful complication.

Mr. Burnett: Would the Minister be minded to accept an amendment that did not exclude this amendment, allowing the definition to include shares that are
neither listed on a recognised stock exchange nor traded on a recognised investment exchange"?

Mr. Timms: No, certainly not, because that would substantially broaden the concept of assets that cannot be readily converted, which would substantially reduce the tax take in a wide range of circumstances.
In practice, the amendment would allow all those companies that on 7 November 2000 were in the process of floating to avoid liability under the Bill, as well as those that had trading arrangements in place.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said when he moved the amendment that he did not think that it would cost very much. My estimate is that it would cost some millions of pounds, as a significant number of companies required to make a special payment under the Bill would not need to do so if the amendment were passed. I can understand why some people might lobby for that change, but I do not think that it would be right to introduce it.

Mr. Flight: The latter part of 2000 was a period when stock markets were weak and there were very few

flotations. Given that the amendment deals with history, the argument that significant revenue is at risk does not stand up.

Mr. Timms: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is true that the shares of a number of companies were lower in the period to which he refers than they had been previously, but the liability faced by those companies under the Bill is therefore less than it would otherwise have been. For that reason, Opposition Members might wish to draw attention to the Government's generosity in setting the relevant date at 7 November. If the amendment were agreed, a substantial number of companies would avoid liability.
In allowing companies whose shares were not readily convertible assets on 7 November last year to pay no national insurance on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000, the Government are already offering considerable relief. Under the existing class 1 rules, many companies would go on the list before the options were exercised and would be liable to class 1 national insurance. The Bill allows all companies whose shares were not readily convertible assets on 7 November last year to be exempt from both class 1 and the special contribution.
I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), about avoidance. As I have said, a number of companies that will have to pay under the Bill as it stands would find, if the amendment were passed, that they did not have to pay anything.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also said that valuations for unlisted companies are difficult to finalise. I can tell him that the shares valuation division of the Inland Revenue can now help companies with their valuations. However, we made it clear in Committee—and I emphasise the point again to the House—that if valuations are produced by the company on a reasonable basis, and if the valuation eventually agreed with the employer is higher, the company will be able to pay the difference without falling back into the class 1 rules.

Mr. Burnett: The Financial Secretary said that he was concerned about the amendment because it would exempt companies in the process of flotation, and those with trading arrangements in place. Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the latter point? That would be of considerable assistance to practitioners and people with unapproved share option schemes, as well as to the House.

Mr. Timms: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. If a company's shares are not regarded as readily convertible assets there is no liability, irrespective of the reasons for that judgment. However, I should be happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing if he would care to drop me a line.
From 7 November 2000, companies will have 92 days after the Bill receives Royal Assent to make a judgment as to whether their shares are readily convertible. As was explained in Committee, the Bill contains appeal provisions that would allow a company that had made a wrong call about whether its shares were readily convertible to pay the special contribution after the 92-day period, as long as that decision had been made on a reasonable basis. That provides an important safeguard for companies.

Mr. Jack: I hope that the Financial Secretary will help me on a technical point. In the case of a company that had flotation plans in train and was therefore deemed to have readily convertible assets, what would happen if the flotation was pulled the day before or the day after the valuation date? What would be the position of that company?

Mr. Timms: If the right hon. Gentleman comes across a company in that position, he should advise it to contact the Inland Revenue for advice. I am confident that such a company would be given clear guidance about how to proceed.
I see no reason, simply for the purposes of this Bill, to impose an arbitrary limit to rules on the definition of readily convertible assets that are well understood and established. I think that that would be an unnecessary, unwelcome and costly complication to the tax system. In the interests of simplicity, as well as for the other reasons that I have advanced, I ask the House not to support the amendment.

Mr. Flight: In view of the guillotine motion, I do not consider the amendment a sufficiently important issue of principle on which to detain the House. However, the Government have introduced a special national insurance contribution charge, and they do not mind the fact that they are addressing a problem of their own making by means of a special form of tax charge. The amendment proposes a special, one-off clarification of readily convertible assets, purely for the purposes of the Bill. It is incorrect for the Minister to object to the fact that we are applying the same principle as the Government are applying.
The Minister made a point about trading arrangements that I do not consider correct. The amendment specifically refers to trading on a recognised exchange. In the absence of the amendment, many companies and Inland Revenue staff will spend a lot of time discussing whether the shares of a limited number were readily convertible assets on 7 November 2000. In most cases, it will be found that they were not. The Government's tax take will be very small as a result, but the costs in terms of time imposed on the companies involved and the Inland Revenue will be considerably greater.
In arriving at that judgment, I have taken heed of the practicalities. It is a pity that the Government do not see fit to accept the amendment, especially as the Bill is designed to be a pragmatic measure, relieving a problem of the Government's making. However, for the sake of time, I shall not press the matter to a vote.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

EFFECT OF NOTICE UNDER SCHEDULE 1

Mr. Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 34, leave out from "amount" to end of line 36 and insert—
'which (in accordance with the provisions of section 135(3)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) would have been taken to be the amount of the gain realised by an exercise in full of that right immediately before the time of its assignment or release.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8.

Mr. Timms: These amendments would amend the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 that deal with the assignment or release of an option that has been settled under the Bill. As I said in Committee, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for identifying a loophole in the Bill as previously drafted.
Clauses 2 and 3 deal with the somewhat complex issue of exchanges of options. Our clear intention was to protect the national insurance liability if a settled option were to be subsequently rolled over—or exchanged for another option—or assigned or released, and the new option were to be of a higher value at the time of the roll-over.
We have looked again at clause 3, as I said in Committee we would, and amended it to ensure that it is effective to deal with the range of situations that may arise. It remains complex. I do not seek to persuade the House that this is a straightforward matter. It is not. It deals with multiple roll-overs and a situation in which options are assigned or released for a mixture of benefits such as options plus cash. Most companies will not need to use the provisions in clause 3, which deal only with roll-overs. For those that do, special guidance will be available so that they can be confident about how the legislation will operate.
3 pm
The amendment leaves undisturbed the class 1 liability on the excess value given for the settled option to prevent the kind of manipulation to which the earlier drafting could have been open and to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs drew our attention.
I commend this technical, but valuable, group of amendments to the House

Mr. Flight: Amendment No. 1 indeed addresses the point that we raised in Committee—that the wording of the Bill as drafted opened up scope for avoidance. By the substitution of the term "gain" for the "gross proceeds" to which the original drafting referred, the mistake is corrected.
Our main objections are to amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. As we pointed out in Committee, clause 3 deals with the complex territory of takeovers, in which people have options in a company that is taken over and receive alternative options. We attempted to draw the Government's attention to what we felt was misdrafting and a misunderstanding of the implications of certain parts of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
It is our perception that those problems have not been grappled with. What is the Government's intention in relation to takeovers and switches of options? We have assumed that common sense will prevail and that the intention is that if people receive a like-for-like option and the value is the same, the position is essentially neutral and no national insurance contribution liability is activated. Obviously, if more valuable options are granted in lieu of the existing options, there is a changed situation, and an NIC liability should apply on the value enhancement, preferably when the options are exercised; or if in place of the existing options people receive a mixture of new options and cash, there will be NIC liability on the cash that has been paid.
It seems that the basic flaw that we pointed out in Committee has been carried over in amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The Bill should provide that if there is an enhancement element in any option exchange, it should be subject to NIC on exercise, as we proposed in Committee. Otherwise, the new option has the benefit of any exemption on the old option.
The technical background is that NIC charges on options are explicitly linked to income tax charges under section 135 of the 1988 Act. Section 4(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 charges NIC on any gain on which the earner is chargeable to tax by virtue of section 135. This charges tax on the exercise, assignment or release of an option and provides that if people exchange one option for another they are not charged tax on the value on the new option, but are charged tax if any other consideration—cash, for example—is given at the same time. The new option should be treated as if it were the original option and the employee had paid the due amount to acquire the new option equal to what he paid for the original one, less any consideration taxed on that exchange and paid at the time of the exchange. So it is a little misleading in amendment No. 3 to describe section 136 of the 1988 Act as
charge to tax on roll-over".
The relevant section moderates a tax charge which would otherwise have applied under section 135.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 expressly require section 136 to be disregarded in certain circumstances which, prima facie, appear to require a class 1 charge under section 4 of the 1992 Act under which there would not be an income tax charge. We are of the view that, technically, the provision is not correct as it stands.
Amendment No. 2 deals with the assignment or release of an option on which NIC can still be charged on the excess of any buy-out consideration which exceeds the inherent gain in the option. That is reasonably sensible in the light of amendment No. 1. However, amendment No. 2 also seems to provide that in the circumstances of an assignment or a release, we can ignore section 136 for these purposes and apply clause 2(3) to charge national insurance on the excess of the buy-out consideration over the lower of either the inherent gain in the old option or the inherent gain in the new option. That would only ever catch an extra cash consideration on the roll-over: if the new option was an enhancement, proposed new section 3A(a) would treat the non-cash consideration as equal to the gain in the old option as the lower of the two gains plus any cash, and the clause 2(3) charge would be only on that amount less the gain in the old option.
The net effect of the wording of the Government's amendment is that if no extra cash is offered on a roll-over but there is still an enhancement element, there will be a nil charge under clause 2(3). I question whether that is what the Government wanted. It is not a bad result, but the drafting that arrives at this, I suspect unintended, result is incomprehensible.
We think that there is an error in the drafting of amendment No. 3. Clause 3(4) preserves the right to charge national insurance on replacement options in specific circumstances, but amendment No. 3 provides that, on a roll-over, section 136 will apply to the new option only to the extent that it is over additional shares—that is, that the exchange is an enhancement. The intention appears to be that any enhancement element would be

referred back to clause 3(4) and charged national insurance on eventual exercise. Is that the Government's intention? If it is, fair enough.
The problem is that if there is no enhancement in the exchange, the wording also implies that section 136 will not apply to the roll-over, where only so much of section 136 applies as relates to additional shares and the new option, prima facie, gives rise to an NIC charge under the 1992 Act because, with section 136 ignored, there would have been a charge for income tax purposes under section 135.
I was upset that it was not possible to re-table on Report the amendments that we tabled in Committee on these complex issues. As we see it, our amendments address what the Government are seeking to achieve and what should be achieved, whereas the Government's amendments, sadly, do not.
On amendment No. 3, specifically, if the old option was covered by a notice under clause 1, there would be a nil class 1 liability and if not, there would be an accelerated employers' and employees' class 1 liability on the option exchange. So there is a mismatch between the national insurance charge and income tax; the Government are penalising "correct" parity non-enhanced option exchanges for companies which do not gamble on their share price. We assume that that is not the Government's intention; if it is, it is not very prudent. We shall be interested to hear whether that is the case. New subsection (4A) in clause 3 is expressed to be subject to new subsection (5), but that does not help the situation either.
We want to hear the Government's counter-arguments. If they think that we have not technically understood this nightmare labyrinth and the fact that, in essence, there is no 1992 Act charge because such a charge is moderated by statutory regulations; and if they are thinking of relying on such regulations, we would advise them against. Not even the Revenue pretends to apply the regulations in that territory, because they were wrongly drafted. The Government should correct or withdraw their amendments and reconsider the arrangements that we proposed in Committee.
Amendment No. 3 should read
leave out from 'or' in line 7 to the end of line of line 31 and add, '(4A) Subject to subsection (5) below, a determination under subsection (4) above may be made in respect of a replacement right or a subsequent replacement right in either case buying a right to which a notice under section 1 applies only—
(a) at a time when, but for this Act, a liability to pay class 1 contributions would otherwise have arisen in respect of that right; and
(b) to the extent that it is a right to acquire additional shares'.
The matter will clearly have to be dealt with in the Lords, but, in short, I ask the Minister to reconsider in depth the drafting of the amendments—especially that of amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which do not achieve what we believe to be the Government's aims.
Amendment No. 4 is not particularly necessary. It seeks to achieve the existing law of the land in a round-about fashion. It seems to be saying only that when there is a roll-over of a new option into another option, with cash paid out as well, the charge is on the cash element under clause 2(3)—on the assumption that one ignores any enhancement element in the new option. As discussed under amendment No. 2, that would be the position in any


case, as I have just commented. We have no particular quibbles as to technical drafting problems with the amendment, but we are not sure that it is needed.
Amendment No. 5 is broadly speaking okay. It addresses a mistake in the Bill which we pointed out in Committee. Amendment No. 6 also corrects a mistake that we pointed out in Committee. Amendment No. 7 is somewhat unclearly drafted, although if it were more precise, it could achieve an end with which everyone is in agreement—along the lines of our alternative amendment proposed in Committee.
Is the Minister sure that the wording of amendment No. 8 is right? We think that the brackets should be deleted from subsection (10)—the current wording does not seem to make grammatical sense. However, I am open to correction. How is the amount of special contribution for one of the options to be assessed, if not according to the principles set out in clause 3? Are we to pretend that the option is an original right?
I apologise for using such technical language, but it is important that law passed by this place is accurate and that it is so drafted as to achieve its objectives. I thought that the Government had accepted the underlying points in the amendments that we tabled to clause 3 in Committee. As I had sight of the Government's amendments only yesterday and had only yesterday afternoon and evening to take legal advice on them, I am disappointed that, for the third time, a significant part of the measure is wrong.

Mr. Burnett: I was extremely interested in the matters raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). He stressed the importance of consultation and of ensuring that the provisions are correct. They are designed to address loopholes in the Bill; we held lengthy discussions on those matters in Committee. In particular, they cover roll-overs and multiple roll-overs—an extremely complex issue. The fact that the amendments were available only yesterday means that neither individuals in the professions nor taxpayers have had an adequate opportunity to give their views on the drafting.
I do not expect the Minister to offer us this afternoon a redrafting or suggested redrafting of amendments that the Government tabled only yesterday. I hope, however, that before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, he will authorise his officials to submit it to the professions, to taxpayers and interested individuals so that they can consider it and offer their comments. I am sure that the Minister will then be minded to listen carefully to their views.
In Committee, I asked the Minister what the Government's aim was in respect of these provisions. I asked him to confirm that, if there was a bona fide exchange of shares—for example, on a takeover—at approximate parity, and provided it that was not part of a measure designed for the avoidance of taxation, a charge should not arise for the taxpayer. There should be no charge to a taxpayer on a takeover or subsequent takeover; to use capital gains tax jargon as roll-over jargon, it should be treated as "no gain, no loss". There should be no charge for the special national insurance contribution.
When the Minister responded to my point, he agreed as to the Government's aim. He said that if the roll-over is at parity, there should be no additional charge. In the light

of our previous debates and our discussions on private companies, will the Minister confirm that there should be no charge? That is important. If there is parity or approximate parity—in respect of private companies, the valuation of shares is an art, not a science—there should be tolerance in valuation either way. It is in the commercial best interests of this country that takeovers happen and that, when they do, taxpayers can be reasonably sure of their liability, provided that they have a bona fide stab at valuation.
Since the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendments that we tabled previously, I can only ask him to elucidate—to tell the House exactly what the charge will be. When will there be an exemption on a roll-over or a multiple roll-over? Will the Minister confirm that he will instruct his officials to circulate these draft provisions to the professions and to interested parties? And when they make their comments and submissions, will he listen to them and then submit a properly drafted Bill to the House of Lords?

Mr. Jack: I do not profess to understand the technicalities of this provision beyond its general purpose, but I rise to express my discontent at Government amendment No. 3 and the tortuous drafting therein. Except for the sake of giving the Financial Secretary adequate time to respond to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), I shall not detain the House for long.
First, I should like to know what Government amendment No. 3 means and how it will be applied. It starts:
Subject to subsection (5), so much of section 136(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (charge to tax in roll-over cases) as provides for"—
and on it goes in the most labyrinthine and impenetrable language. I want to know what it means.

Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Oh no!

Mr. Jack: It is a great pity that the Whip on duty will not grace the House with his own clairvoyance on the matter. The fact that we are subjected to such language is a condemnation of parliamentary drafting, especially as a tax law rewrite exercise is taking place.
Secondly, I should like the Financial Secretary to tell us why such a technical matter was not subject to further consultation. The Government have had long enough to develop the Bill. Part of the clarity of the tax system has been achieved by virtue of subjecting to outside opinion the proposals in the rewrite exercise. As both Front-Bench spokesmen have said, this group of amendments clearly has not been subject to the white heat of public scrutiny.
I ask the Financial Secretary for a proper, fully detailed explanation of Government amendment No. 3. Why has it been so poorly drafted? How does he propose to ensure that practitioners have an opportunity to comment on the legislation before it is finally cast in concrete?

Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for the care with which he has studied these amendments and taken advice on their contents. He and the hon. Member for Torridge


and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) have asked me what precisely is the Government's intention in clause 3, so I shall explain it again.
Under clause 3, settled options will not incur any further class 1 liability where the option is subsequently rolled over, provided that roll-over is conducted at parity. That aspiration was expressed by both hon. Gentlemen, and that is our intention. Where the roll-over is not at parity, class 1 national insurance contributions will apply, but only on the proportion of the gain on the new option that relates to the amount in excess of parity. So the amount of the gain on the new option that relates to the original remains capped.

Mr. Burnett: rose—

Mr. Timms: Let me finish the point. I confident that, when these amendments are agreed to, that is what the clause will achieve. The relief from class 1 contributions will be provided by a new basis of the class 1 charge. Therefore, only the proportion of the new option in excess of parity will be subject to charge. That is the intention.
Of course, I shall consider with great care what hon. Members have said about the details of the wording. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asks what Government amendment No. 3 will achieve. The best that I can do is to refer him to the published notes, which set out precisely what Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will achieve. I shall carefully consider the points that hon. Members have made. I am happy to discuss technical matters, as we have done throughout the process, with the share scheme lawyers group. The Inland Revenue has discussed the roll-over provisions with that group. I believe that these amendments will achieve the Government's intention, which is supported on both sides of the House, and on that basis, I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR ROLL-OVERS

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—

'(3A) The liability by virtue of section 2(3) to pay Class 1 contributions in respect of a gain realised on the assignment or release of the original right shall be determined—

(a) as if (notwithstanding anything in section 136(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) the replacement right were or, as the case may be, were part of the valuable consideration given for the assignment or release; and
(b) as if the value of so much of that consideration as is represented by the replacement right were equal to whichever is the smaller of the following amounts—

(i) the amount which (in accordance with the provisions of section 135(3)(a) of that Act) would have been taken to be the gain realised by an exercise in full of the original right immediately before the time of its assignment or release; and
(ii) the amount which (in accordance with those provisions) would have been taken to be the amount of the gain realised by an exercise in full of the replacement right at that time (assuming it to be exercisable at that time) which falls immediately after it is given in consideration of the assignment or release.'.

No. 3, in page 5, line 7, leave out from "determined" to first "to" in line 29 and insert—
'in accordance with the following provisions of this section. 
(4A) Subject to subsection (5), so much of section 136(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (charge to tax in roll-over cases) as provides for sections 135 and 136 of that Act to apply as mentioned in section 136(1) of that Act in relation to the replacement right, or in relation to any subsequent replacement right, shall be deemed to have effect (or, as the case may be, to have had effect) for the purposes of the determination mentioned in subsection (4) of this section—

(a) as if it provided for those sections to apply (and to apply as so mentioned) in relation to that right'.

No. 4, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—
(5) Where—

(a) the whole or any part of any consideration given for the assignment or release of the replacement right or of any subsequent replacement right does not (or did not) comprise a subsequent replacement right, and
(b) as a consequence, a gain would (but for this Act) be taken for the purposes of section 135 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to be realised (or to have been realised) on that assignment or release,

that gain shall be taken for the purposes of the determination mentioned in subsection (4) to be (or, as the case may be, to have been) equal to the amount in respect of which liability to pay Class 1 contributions would have been preserved, on the assumptions mentioned in subsection (5A), by virtue of section 2(3) (read with subsection (3A) of this section) or, if no such liability would have been so preserved, to nil.
(5A) Those assumptions are—

(a) that (subject to paragraph (c)) the right assigned or released is a right the liability to pay Class 1 contributions in respect of which is a liability to which section 2(1)(a) or (b) applied;
(b) that references in subsection (3A) of this section to the original right and to the replacement right are references, respectively, to the right that is assigned or released and to the right comprised in the consideration for the assignment or release; and
(c) that so much of the right assigned or released as is a right to acquire additional shares is to be disregarded for the purposes of both section 2(3) and subsection (3A) of this section.

(5B) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall limit or remove, or be deemed to have limited or removed, any liability to pay Class 1 contributions in respect of a gain arising on the exercise, assignment or release of the replacement right, or of any subsequent replacement right, in any case in which the right in question or that gain derives (directly or indirectly) from a transaction the purpose, or one of the main purposes, of which was to make use of the provisions of this Act to avoid the payment of such contributions in respect of a benefit conferred after 19th May 2000.'.

No. 5, in page 5, line 36, leave out from "right" to "the" in line 37 and insert—
'with a value that matches the value of'.

No. 6, in page 5, line 41, leave out from "right" to end of line 49 and insert—
'shall be taken to have a value that matches the value of the shares obtainable in exercise of the old right to the extent, and to the extent only, that the following amounts are the same—

(a) the amount which (in accordance with the provisions of section 135(3)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) would be taken to be the amount of the gain realised by an exercise of the new right at the relevant time (assuming it to be exercisable at that time) for obtaining the shares; and




(b) the amount which would have been taken (in accordance with those provisions) to be the gain realised by a full exercise of the old right immediately before the time of its assignment or release;

and in this subsection "the relevant time", in relation to the new right, means the time which falls immediately after it is given in consideration of the assignment or release of the old right.'.

No. 7, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
'( ) All such apportionments as may be necessary shall be made in determining for the purposes of this section, in a case in which the number of additional shares cannot be a whole number, to what extent a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arises in relation to the exercise, assignment or release of a right to acquire any such shares.'.

No. 8, in page 6, line 8, leave out—
'require the assumptions set out in subsections (5) and (6) to be used'
and insert "apply"—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 5

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 40, leave out "sixty" and insert "ninety-two".
In Committee, I was happy to accept the amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), which extended the period in which notification and payment must be made from 60 to 92 days after Royal Assent. Of course, that change must be made throughout the Bill, but we subsequently found an omission. The amendment will remedy that omission and ensures that 92 days will be referred to throughout.

Mr. Flight: We welcome this amendment. In fact, in Committee, it was our error to have missed one of the references to 60 days. We are glad that the Government have picked up that omission, so that the Bill will refer to 92 days throughout.

Mr. Burnett: We also welcome this amendment. We supported the amendments in Committee. The date for notification and payment will now be 92 days, not 60 days, as in the proposals as originally drafted. This worthwhile amendment is welcomed throughout the business community.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill, as hon. Members know, responds to the concerns of a number of companies about the effects of paying national insurance on employee share option gains. Following that change, some companies said that the uncapped secondary national insurance charge had led to accounting difficulties for them.
Following a period of consultation, measures were introduced last year, enabling companies to remove the accounting problems and uncertainty that the NIC charge presented. The earlier measure allowed companies to ask the employee to bear the secondary national insurance charge on the share option gain. That was announced on

19 May 2000. That legislation has enabled companies to remove the accounting difficulties and has provided them with certainty.
Although last year's legislation was drafted to cover all the options that had already been granted, it has, not surprisingly, been difficult for employers to negotiate with employees terms that change options already granted to them, so the uncertainty remained for some of the companies that granted options before 19 May 2000.
The Bill responds by giving companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000 early, in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that choose to take advantage of this measure will be able to cap their national insurance liability by calculating the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7 November 2000.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Financial Secretary clarify a basic point about the legislation? We are trying to redress an anomaly, which was created as a consequence of earlier legislation designed to prevent tax avoidance of the NIC charge by the use of share options. How much revenue do the Government reckon was at stake in the beginning, and how much revenue is at stake now? We have just heard the most extraordinary labyrinthine story of complex legislation being added to the statute book, and that has resulted in huge compliance costs for industry and a bonanza for lawyers. How much money will the Government get in return for that?

Mr. Timms: The Bill does not correct an anomaly; it completes the arrangements to ensure that companies will not face the uncertainties about which some of them have been concerned. On the hon. Gentleman's question about the cost, because payments in the first year will have to be made within 92 days of Royal Assent there will be a gain to the Exchequer. Money will be paid earlier than it would be if it were paid only when the options were exercised. Over a five-year period, there will be a loss to the Exchequer and we estimate that to be about £160 million.

Mr. Tyrie: I am sure that the Minister has given the correct answer about the cost of the Bill, but my question was about the problem that was generated by the decision taken in 1996. I want to know how much revenue was at stake when that decision was taken. Clearly, the Government must have gone back to consider the original legislation to see whether it was worth while closing all these loopholes.

Mr. Timms: I do not have a figure for how much was at stake when the previous Government made the changes in 1996. I have no doubt that they published figures at the time, and I shall certainly try to dig them out. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
As I have explained, companies that choose to take advantage of the measure will be able to cap their national insurance liability by calculating the amount of national insurance due by reference to the gain accrued up to 7 November 2000. They will be required to notify the Inland Revenue and pay the appropriate amount within 92 days of Royal Assent.
Our consideration of the Bill has been brief, but it has been fruitful. Several worthwhile improvements to it have been made and I am grateful to hon. Members for that. I take pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Flight: As the House is aware, the Bill is the Government's second attempt to correct the problems of their own making when, with inadequate consultation, they introduced in April 1999 a charge to national insurance on unapproved option gains. As has been pointed out, this attempt has resulted in excessive technical detail and it still has not got the corrections entirely right in the objectives for takeovers, under this relieving Bill.
We have welcomed, in principle, the relieving measures in the Bill and we welcome the fact that the Government accepted most of the points that we raised in Committee. They will make the operation of the relieving measures more practical by allowing a sensible period of 92 days in which to elect to pay this one-off national insurance charge.
However, as we said at some length on Second Reading and in Committee, we continue to oppose the principle of making companies gamble on their potential tax liabilities. The only comfort for most listed companies that issued options between April 1999 and May 2000 is that the options would likely have been significantly under water on 7 November 2000, given what happened to stock markets over that period. Therefore, the great majority of companies will not have any difficult decisions to make, because they will not have a special NIC liability.
I stress that we do not think it is correct for Governments to play with tax policy and offer quid pro quos, or gambles, on shareholders' funds. Let the Government never forget that the overwhelming majority of shareholders are pension funds.
The Government have not entirely understood the principles relating to market abuse on which they themselves insisted in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. At that time, we urged them to accept the principle of intent, but they resisted that. As a result, under the Bill, giving misleading price information—whether intended or not—will be an offence.
As we have previously pointed out, if companies do not exercise the option to make the special NIC payment, the markets will perceive them as sending a negative signal about their share price prospects. However, as the Minister agreed, the reasons for that might be quite different: companies might not exercise the right because of a shortage of cash or because of intended staff changes. The only comfort is that the latest draft of the Financial Services Authority's code of conduct on market abuse makes it clear that it has included the concept of intent in virtually every provision, as we recommended at the outset.
As we pointed out last summer in the debates on the Finance Act 2000, our main criticism is directed towards the whole approach of treating options in the same way as remuneration and the argument that gains on unapproved options should be subject to national insurance charges. Such thinking is misplaced. It is absolutely clear that if someone's remunerations arrangements involve a lower salary than he might receive at a mature company but

include a package of options, whether those options have any value is entirely a matter of risk. The net effect of everything that the Government have done is to tax those options at a higher rate than ordinary income, and that cannot be logical.
In reality, the Government's proposals were an excuse for more stealth taxation. On 4 September last year, the Minister wrote to me advising that the Treasury viewed the cost of not having national insurance on unapproved options as £1 billion per annum. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Government will obtain anything like that revenue from national insurance on options. To the extent that the Government argue that the proposals are designed to close avoidance loopholes, I point out that I have never encountered arrangements whereby one can have a share option scheme with a certain return. If the Government and Revenue have encountered such an arrangement, that problem could have been dealt with specifically. The much wider measure of treating option gains as the same as earned income is the wrong path down which to go.
The issue is important because unapproved options have become central to entrepreneurial motivation in this country. The tax regime for approved options is attractive but they are limited to £30,000 in value. Sadly, the Government's new executive management incentive scheme is extremely restrictive. Therefore, unapproved options are used overwhelmingly to offer incentives to management, particularly in new businesses in the new technology and new economy sectors.
In Committee, the Minister admitted that only 100 companies of the 20,000 or so suitable have taken up the new executive management scheme incentive scheme. Although it looks very generous, it is difficult to qualify for and any company that started to achieve success would quickly disqualify itself. I am tempted to observe that the Government knew that because the amount of tax cost provided in the Red Book was modest.
Let us come to the heart of the matter. I am assuming that the Government are not disingenuous in their desire to see a much more vital economy and a much higher level of venture capital investment. We should not be complacent. The United Kingdom is doing poorly against America. Per pound or dollar of national income, America is achieving about four times the level of venture capital investment of the United Kingdom. We may be doing well against Europe, but we are certainly doing poorly against America. That has been central to the growth rates of the two economies. America has grown at about 4.6 per cent. per annum for the past three years and the United Kingdom at only about 2.3 per cent. Our under-performance is material. The huge US economy has done so well largely because of the tremendously positive level of investment and activity in new ventures in high-tech, new economy and so forth.
This is central to the Bill. When people in the venture capital industry in the United Kingdom are asked what are the key issues, interestingly they say that right now it is not about there not being enough money, but about a shortage of talented management wanting to come forward. There is a shortage of people willing to leave the more comfortable employment terms and security with large, established businesses and risk joining a new business. Often there is also a shortage of new business projects that those people might otherwise bring to the table.
When the venture capital industry is asked what is central to this issue, it says that the tax regime on share options in the United Kingdom is extremely unattractive compared with that in the United States. In the United States for the equivalent of UK approved schemes, known as ISOs, people can have $100,000 of options per annum; the employee is not taxed on exercise but only on the sale of shares following the exercise of those options; the tax rate, provided that he has held the shares for a year, is 20 per cent.; and there is no equivalent to national insurance charge because social security charges are capped for both employer and employee at incomes of $74,000.
In the United States, the new business sector which is not hugely profitable—it is building businesses where cash flow is tight—uses predominantly ISO options to pull in and motivate talented management and, inevitably, pays them lower salaries than they would get in mature businesses. That is what options are all about.
While US unapproved options have a tax of 39.6 per cent. on exercise, the issuing companies get a tax credit equal to the tax which the employee pays, so the net tax situation between employer and employee is tax paid at about 10 per cent. and, again, there is no equivalent to our national insurance charge.
If the Government genuinely want to get a higher level of venture capital activity in the United Kingdom, it is crucial that they accept and understand the message from the industry that we are going wrong on option incentives. The Computing Services and Software Association said to the Chancellor in the lead-up to the discussions behind the Bill:
We need a similar regime to the USA as that is where we have to compete for staff.
The Minister will be aware that the top management of Cisco, now the largest high-tech company in the world, and of companies such as Micromuse—still British but with more of its activities in the United States than here—say that the high tax on options was leading them to move their operations elsewhere, predominantly to the USA, because they could not motivate staff here where options were taxed too highly.
The staff needed in the new business areas are international. They are people who will move about the world readily. This is not necessarily about a brain drain from here to the United States; it is also about whether we attract the talent from all over the world to the UK that we need to get our high-tech sector going.
The chairman of the UK small business investment taskforce, appointed by the Government, commented in a letter two weeks ago on how restrictive the executive management incentive option schemes were and on how punitive the national insurance charge arrangements on options are. The chief executive of QXL Internet Auction company commented that the NIC situation in this country would force talented staff out of the United Kingdom.
The message from the high-tech industry is loud and clear. This relieving Bill is welcome in terms of the specifics, but it does not address the fundamental issue—namely, that the Government have hit the venture capital and new tech industries by applying a 47.3 per cent. Tax

charge on unapproved options when individuals exercise them. That is right at the centre of why we are not doing nearly as well as the US in our new venture capital industry.
Last May the Government realised and accepted the threat to the cash flows of new companies by imposing NICs on options. It is the companies that are the problem with a 12.2 per cent. national insurance charge. The Government thought that they could be clever and that by a wheeze they could keep the stealth tax that they had imposed by changing the rules so that the employer's NIC could be transferred to the employee. As the Government have confirmed, that gives a 47.32 per cent. tax charge to employees on unapproved share options.
It is palpably nonsense that a risky form of remuneration—whether options are worth anything depends on the particular success or failure of an individual business, whether new high-tech areas prosper and the general economic climate and where the risk-to-reward ratio is skewed heavily to risk—should attract higher tax than a safe salary. That is theoretical nonsense. It is reducing the use of options. The reaction of talented people who are willing to work for new ventures is to want better salaries and a safer income, as well as some options. Instead of the trade-off of lower salaries and more options, they are demanding higher salaries, and that is just what new businesses cannot afford.
Behind the Bill still lies the great misfortune that just when the Government have been claiming that they want to help new ventures, venture capital and entrepreneurship, they have hit at the centre and made the key element—namely, option incentivisation—punitive and unattractive tax-wise. If the Minister goes out and about in the venture capital industry and talks to people other than the Government's cronies, he will find that the Government are not seen as bona fide friends to entrepreneurship and venture capital, and are believed not to understand how crucial the taxation of options is to entrepreneurial endeavour.
When the relieving measures that we are discussing were announced shortly before Christmas, the press reaction summed them up. It was that the proposals received one cheer from high-tech entrepreneurs, who said that they did not go far enough and did not address the fundamental issue. Others commented that the problem is of the Government's own making, with constant tinkering and a failure to sort out the fundamental issue of what the tax regime should be for share options, if we want to be able to attract many more talented people into new ventures.
The Bill is a relieving measure and we are not opposing it. We hope that the Government will correct what we believe are outstanding technical errors as the Bill passes through another place. We appreciate that the Government have accepted our proposals to make arrangements simpler and to avoid potential for unfairness in this Bill. We say to the Government, "If you are genuine about wanting to encourage entrepreneurship, go back to first principles and consider the taxation of options in the United States. Do what those who are at the centre of, and who are trying to create, more new venture capital and more new business recommend, and look to have option taxation regimes that are broadly similar to those of the US and that are not punitive, as the mainstream unapproved option regime now is."

Mr. Burnett: This is one of the few occasions where the Government have changed their mind on a Treasury Bill. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to, and understanding, the points that have been made. Both the changes to which he has agreed are important.
The Bill is a relieving measure and it is helpful. It caps liabilities at 7 November 2000. As I said earlier, other amendments could have been made in fairness to taxpayers. For example, the Government should have given taxpayers a choice whether to pay on 7 November or on the date on which the option was exercised. That would have been simpler, just as certain, and fair. Now, an individual will, for example, have to pay national insurance contributions on the value of an option on 7 November last of £100,000. The option might decrease significantly in value, and when he or she exercises the option in years to come, the value might be only £10,000, so the individual will be considerably worse off.
The amendments that have been agreed to are welcome. First, the period in which notice is given and contributions have to be made is extended from 60 days to 92. Secondly, there is the amendment that applies where the amount of special contribution is nil because on 7 November either the option was under water or the shares were not readily convertible assets. In those circumstances, notice would be deemed to have been given within the prescribed period. Those are helpful amendments.
We discussed the significant amendments that the Government introduced yesterday, and the Minister has confirmed that he will circulate the draft clauses and probably the entire Bill. I welcome that. I believe he said that he would circulate them to the various professional bodies and perhaps to some taxpayers who call for representation so that they have the opportunity to make submissions and produce amendments to clarify and improve the Bill.
Having had those assurances from the Minister, and realising that the Bill is a relieving measure, we welcome the Bill and the amendments to which the Minister has acquiesced. We shall not, therefore, oppose it.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I confess that I did not understand all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made when he was dealing with the Government's amendments to clause 3. I doubt whether anyone else in the House did. I certainly do not think that the Minister did. The only person who fully grasped them was my hon. Friend. That reflects a serious problem that we have encountered today in trying to make legislation of this sort on the Floor of the House.
It is certain that we shall be passing a flawed Bill to the other place, where we hope that it will be put right. It seems that the programme motion will prevent virtually any discussion, if the Government so choose, of any changes made in the other place, even if they are substantive. Effectively, that which is to become law will have received virtually no scrutiny in this place. That is not a good way to produce legislation.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs that this relieving Bill is welcome, but that the Government have hit the industry

elsewhere and have not understood the damage that they have been doing. We are dealing with a complex and technical matter that relates to an awkward interaction between tax and national insurance contributions. The origins of the problem lie in the decision to treat options as remuneration. That was done as an anti-avoidance measure. I shall throw up for consideration whether that was worth it and whether the Government have thought through whether it was.
There are two ways of answering that question. First, was it worth it from the Inland Revenue's perspective and how much NIC liability has been created? The Minister gave me the figures for this relieving measure, but following my earlier intervention it was clear that he had no understanding of how much money was being brought in as a whole as a result of the underlying measure, which the Government are attempting to improve by means of the Bill. How much avoidance activity will be discouraged by putting the Bill on the statute book? The yield may be low, but firms may have written fewer options than they would otherwise have done.
The second big issue in addressing whether it was right to treat options as remuneration is the effect that that has had on the whole economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to that in his excellent speech. Treating options as remuneration significantly affects economic behaviour. Share options may be extremely efficient as incentives to better business performance. That approach will have been discouraged by anti-avoidance measures.
An assessment of the entire economy would also take into account the compliance burden, the administrative burden and the legal and accounting costs involved in introducing the measure. There has been far too little analysis of those whole-economy effects and a great reluctance to put numbers on them, in terms not only of the Bill and underlying legislation but of a range of measures that the Government have taken since 1997.
Some of that work used to be done by the deregulation unit, but one of the Government's first acts was to abolish that, in July 1997.
The Government are trying to mitigate the whole-economy damage that some of their measures have caused by creating the new approved scheme. The EMI scheme and the company share option plans that the Government introduced push in that direction. They have heavily targeted the information technology sector with some of their measures. I am not convinced that it is right to create a distortive incentive to target a particular sector. The argument runs that that incentive is needed because shares in the IT sector are more volatile. So what? Volatility should be treated as a business cost and the Government should not rejig the tax system to take account of it.
I said that I do not like the way in which the Government have gone about the matter. By implication, I am criticising the way in which the previous Government tried to treat the awkward relationship between tax and national insurance contributions. Of course, that is the origin of the Bill. Let me briefly go through a few possible alternative approaches. The first would be to continue muddling through, which, clearly, the Government are trying to do now. One could continue to try to police the line between tax and national insurance; one could try to limit tax avoidance, but strike


a balance between closing tax ramps and chasing small sums that might slip through. However, there is always the risk that one is chasing ever smaller sums with larger dollops of regulation and ever more pages of legislation.

Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to, and agree with, the contribution principle?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me say that his remarks are becoming rather wide-ranging. Third Reading is limited to the contents of the Bill, and his remarks should be limited to those contents.

Mr. Tyrie: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know that the Bill that we are now considering will not end up on the statute book because it is flawed as drafted; there will be further consultation and it will be fundamentally re-examined in the House of Lords. It is therefore helpful to flag up markers for the other place when it comes to examine the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What happens to the Bill when it leaves this place does not affect the fact that Third Reading speeches should relate purely to the content of the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: A crucial aspect of that content is the great emphasis on the need to collect revenue, however small the amount being chased. Looking at the Bill, one sees that there is almost a light-headedness about putting on the statute book huge quantities of highly complicated legislation. I defy anybody to read the amendments and honestly say that they can work out what they mean. As I said, nobody has made the effort to work out the whole-economy effect of such measures.
Other approaches need to be adopted alongside the approach that the Government have decided to take. One is to treat share options like all shares and tax the capital gain, as was suggested by Mr. Mike Lynch, chief executive of the software group Autonomy. He said:
There's no doubt that the Government is trying to do the right thing.
I agree. Mr. Lynch continues:
The problem is that they tinker, tinker, tinker and don't sort out the fundamental issue, which is that options should be treated as a capital gain, and not be hit with national insurance.
That has some attractions, although the logic of it leads towards integration of capital gains tax and income tax; I am not sure whether Mr. Lynch had that in mind. Of course, the treatment of capital gains as a marginal slice of income was the intellectual background to the 1988 Budget, which caused so much controversy in the venture capital industry. That is not the right way to go. Capital gains tax is in a fundamental mess, and trying to go down that route would make it even worse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman is cantering around the economy, I remind him yet again that he must debate the precise content of the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making sure that I do not canter around the economy.

However, I assure you that there is an intimate inter-relationship between share options, capital gains and the anti-avoidance measures on national insurance that we are discussing. Once one is altered, the others will require attention, which is why this awkward measure is before us today.
I shall not linger for more than two sentences on the point about the contributory principle made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I disagree with the view that national insurance contributions and income tax should be integrated, and believe that the contributory principle should stay. The recent report of the Select Committee on Social Security agreed with that, and that is probably where we shall remain. If so, we are thrown back to the first option that I listed—muddling through. If we do muddle through, I urge the Government, as I said a moment ago, not to chase ever smaller sums of revenue with ever more regulation. Is it really worth trying to collect national insurance on unapproved share options?
That is the key underlying question, which I hope the other place will have in mind when they examine the Bill. When it does so, I hope that it will weigh the whole-economy cost against the diminishing return to the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Eric Forth: Following your general nudging of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I would say a few words about the Bill. That seems to be the order of the day and is what the House expects on Third Reading. I shall have a go and see if I can deal with the Bill in the limited time that is left.
First, an irregularity that struck me—and which, I hope, will attract the attention of their Lordships in another place—is the Bill's long title. These are difficult, complicated matters to do with tax and high finance, and understanding them is obviously limited to a small number of people, of whom I am certainly not one. In those circumstances, the layman is allowed to speculate about why on earth the Bill deals retrospectively with a period beginning with 6 April 1999 and ending with 19 May 2000.
That tells one several things, including the fact that the problem was certainly not noticed when it should have been and/or was not dealt with properly when it should have been. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we shall reach back into the recesses of time and try to deal with it now. That strikes me as something that we would normally deprecate and be uneasy about. Against that background, I am a little unhappy with the consensus with which the Bill seems to be easing its way forward.
Following your helpful advice to look at the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my eye lit upon clause 2(5), in which, I thought, some sinister elements appeared. It contains the condition:
If it appears to the Inland Revenue that a person who has given a notice under section 1 in respect of any right and who would (but for subsection (4) of this section), be liable by virtue of that notice to pay a special contribution".
A lot of use of "appears to" and "but for" is creeping in. At the very least, that indicates something that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was at pains to point out from the start:


the measure has not been properly thought out and, despite the expertise and tender ministrations of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), we still have not got it anywhere near where it should be at this stage of the proceedings. After all, the Bill is in the last gasps of its proceedings through the House of Commons. I wonder whether the Government are up to their old tricks, hoping that it will be sorted out properly in another place. That is a constitutional and parliamentary proposition of extremely dubious value.
This place should take responsibility for sorting out Bills that originate here. One could say that, when a Bill originates in another place, we expect it to come here in good order. The same must surely apply in the other direction. What seems to be happening recently, not least in respect of this Bill, is that we have come to rest more and more on the presumption that we can do sloppy, untidy, hasty, poor work here—making the law of the land, let us not forget, and affecting people very directly, as our measures must inevitably do, and this Bill no less than most—and pass it to the other end of the building, saying to their lordships, "You have more time. You can sort it out." That is not a sound constitutional principle.
My doubts grew even stronger when I read in clause 2(5)(a) the words:
which he had reasonable grounds for believing was the correct amount of his liability".
That is probably fair enough, but the clause goes on, almost unbelievably, in paragraph (c):
has a reasonable excuse for having failed to do either of those things within that period"—
not a reason, but an excuse. Excuses have now entered our statute as a term of art.
I am not a lawyer. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon is an eminent lawyer. It is probably too late for him to comment now, but I leave the thought with him and not least with the Minister: if we are writing excuses into our statute, matters have gone beyond all reason. It makes me wonder how on earth we could have arrived at this point in our deliberations, with all the accumulated brain power of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, the Minister, who has been praised lavishly today and whom I will praise modestly, and all the panoply of talent available to the Minister via the parliamentary draftsmen, when they are not engaged on hundreds of amendments to other Bills at the last minute.
The best that the Government can come up with in the Bill is a reference to someone having a reasonable excuse for having failed to do something within a specified period. It is pretty desperate stuff, when one thinks about it. It is not the stuff of which proper statutes should be

made. It will provide a field day for the lawyers. Imagine them getting their minds around that, and their fees around it, as well. I will not tempt my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who, if he were listening to me, which he wisely is not—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I was listening closely to my right hon. Friend. He was speaking about fees.

Mr. Forth: I shall have a quiet word later with my right hon. and learned Friend. Leading up to the talk about fees, I was speaking about excuse as a concept in the law. He and I can discuss that later; even though it is in the Bill, I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want me to elaborate further.
At that point, I was put off reading the Bill any further. I thought, "If things are as bad as that so early in the Bill, I do not see why I should upset myself or anyone else by reading on." I concluded without too much effort that it is yet another example of a Bill poorly conceived, poorly drafted and—I say this with considerable regret—poorly scrutinised, mainly because the Government have not given us proper time or opportunity to give it the attention that it deserves.
As has been pointed out, the period allowed between identification of the flaws in the Bill in Committee and its Report stage today would usually be sufficient to permit proper reflection, advice to be taken from other sources and the expertise of those whom I mentioned previously to be brought to bear. None of that has been allowed. If we are to learn a lesson from the Bill, it is that the way in which the Government are requiring the House to deal with legislation is inadequate. It palpably does not work, and the Bill is a perfect example of that.
Although I sense that we shall probably give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading—would that that were not the case, as I would love to vote against it—I hope that, at the very least, we can invite Members of another place to give it much more scrutiny than they might otherwise do.

Mr. Timms: The climate for enterprise and entrepreneurship in the United Kingdom is better than it has ever been, and the Bill makes it better still. We have made a number of changes to the Bill. It has been a good example of effective scrutiny. I take great pleasure in commending it to the House.

It being a quarter past Four o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16th January:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Six o'clock.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock.

4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
(b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed by 7 pm. The programme is supplemental to the one approved for the Committee stage, which finished in good time, before the programmed date of 1 February. Indeed, we did not use all the time that was allowed in Committee under the programme motion agreed by the House.

The Bill was debated thoroughly in Committee; the debate covered a range of relevant matters in detail. There was a high degree of consensus, and I am grateful for the co-operation of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and other hon. Members on the overall aims of the Bill. However, that did not prevent detailed and vigorous discussion and a thorough examination of the provisions.

The Government have not tabled any further amendments. Only a small number of Opposition amendments were tabled in Committee, and the amendments before us this afternoon were discussed in Committee, so we should have plenty of time for debate in the time allocated for consideration of the amendments. Similarly, I hope that, given the consensus, Third Reading would not require more time than has been allocated. If the Opposition do not oppose the motion and we commence Report and Third Reading shortly, we will have two and three quarter hours for the debate. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Robert Walter: It has become a ritual at the conclusion of each Second Reading debate and at the beginning of each Report stage that we spend 45 minutes debating not the merits of the Bill, however

worthy and however urgent, but how long we will permit ourselves—or more correctly, how long the Government will permit us—to scrutinise the legislation.
The proceedings on the Bill are a classic example of bad management of the time that the House spends scrutinising the Government's legislation. We spent the permitted 45 minutes debating the programme motion after Second Reading on 15 January, then a further 15 minutes or so voting on the motion—all to what effect? We voted to conclude the Committee stage by 1 February—not an unreasonable target for an eight-clause Bill, but as the Government are the masters of the timetable of the House, did the House need to resolve such a date at all?
We also voted to set up a Programming Sub-Committee to timetable the Committee stage so that we might meet that target. As is the practice of such Sub-Committees, we met in private, with no record of our proceedings. We met early in the morning, two days after Second Reading, with the greatest display of amity that I have seen in the House for some time. We all referred to each other not by our constituencies, nor as Mr. this or Mrs. that, but by our Christian names, which is the practice in the National Assembly for Wales, where Members have a different way of conducting their business.
The Minister—I dare not call him Dave now—moved a motion that we should meet at 10.30 on a Tuesday and 9.30 on a Thursday, and that we should conclude our proceedings by 1 February. The Government Whip—may I call him Don?—then informally suggested that we meet for five sittings: twice on the first Tuesday, once on the Thursday and twice the next Tuesday. The Opposition protested that that might not be sufficient. "Ah. No problem." We could meet after dinner each Tuesday. "But that may not be sufficient, either," we protested. We were then told, "Oh well, maybe we could meet twice on the first Thursday, and if that isn't sufficient, we could meet twice on the following Thursday." The original five sittings had now been expanded to a possible 10 sittings.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To help the Opposition.

Mr. Walter: Indeed, to help the Opposition. That is the point that I am coming to. We could meet as often as we liked, so long as we finished by a specified end date. It was concluded that we could come back to the House if there was not sufficient time and ask for more time. There was some discussion between the Chairman and the Clerk on that point, but the Committee concluded that we could ask for an extension.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that a motion asking for more time was dealt with earlier today, in relation to another Bill. He has obviously been preparing for the excellent speeches that he will make on the Bill before us, but will he confirm that we cannot consider or debate motions for further time? Such motions are simply slapped before the House, with or without consensus, and hon. Members who have not had the privilege of participating in the process are asked to take them or leave them. Does my hon. Friend approve of that procedure?

Mr. Walter: I do not. As my right hon. Friend points out, we were not permitted to debate a Hunting Bill


programme motion that was dealt with earlier. Apparently, according to the Sessional Orders that deal with programme motions, no debate is possible on such extensions of time.
I left the Programming Sub-Committee wondering what purpose our meeting and the programme motion had served. It seemed that the usual channels were alive and well. The Whips could formulate whatever mutual agreement they felt to be necessary, and the rigid programme motion was completely superfluous. We must now consider whether the Government's proposed allocation of time is adequate for Report and Third Reading. As on so many previous occasions when we have debated a timetable motion, it is peculiarly difficult, if not impossible, to state with confidence whether the proposed time will be adequate.
One of the principal reasons why we can have no idea at this stage whether it will be adequate is that we do not know how many hon. Members will seek to speak on the new clauses or to what extent. Without knowing how many speeches will be made, how complicated they will be or how strongly held the opinions expressed by hon. Members on either side of the House will be, it is absurd to speculate on whether we will have sufficient time to consider the issues.
Even hon. Members who consider, as I do, that the Bill is sound in principle believe that the House should be able to consider its detail even at this late stage, before it goes to another place.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend said that this was a late stage. Although he is correct in one sense, it is also the first stage at which the House as a whole can consider the detail. That is what consideration on Report is about.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. This is the opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House who did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee to discuss the amendments and new clauses that they have tabled. That will be pretty difficult in the time available. Although Opposition Members have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments, only two of them—I am sure that the timetable was borne in mind—have been selected for debate. It is a great pity that the Government display so much haste and indifference to the rights both of the Opposition and of their Back Benchers, who were very active in Committee.

Mr. Hanson: I am greatly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's contribution, as I can tell from his eyes that he does not believe a word of it. Will he tell the House exactly when the Committee's sittings finished? As I recall, we did not use the time allocated for either the Tuesday or the Thursday sittings. And which hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee have tabled amendments for consideration today?

Mr. Walter: It is clear that other hon. Members have not tabled such amendments. However, I have discussed with my hon. Friends a number of amendments and new clauses, and given the limited time granted by the timetabling of this business, we plan to ask our noble Friends in the other place to table similar amendments.

Mr. Hogg: It may be right for amendments to be tabled in the other place, but does my hon. Friend agree that we,

as elected Members of the House of Commons, should be the first to consider any substantive amendments? Does he further agree that if amendments have to be considered in another place because of a timetable motion, that is in itself a criticism of the process on which we are embarking?

Mr. Walter: Yes. We will have barely an hour or so to consider on Report what emerged from the Committee. That time is insufficient for us to give adequate scrutiny to the Bill.
I know that the Government are treating the measure with a degree of urgency, and that they want to get it through the House of Commons, to the other place and then back, so we can consider their lordships' amendments. I have no doubt that some members of the Government have a date in mind, maybe a month or so away, when they would like to tell the electorate that they have put the measure on to the statute book. Indeed, the Bill may be the only measure that they can claim to have introduced in the current Session.
The timetable that the Government are insisting on has not been discussed before today. Opposition Members will be content to vote against the motion because we do not believe that the business of the House should be conducted in such a manner. We do not know how much consideration will be required by hon. Members who have an interest in the Bill, yet the Government are insisting on the motion. We will oppose it for that reason, and ask them to reconsider it.
It is a flagrant abuse of the House to use programme motions on every Bill, but the Government have done so since the current Session began. However perverse they might feel it is for Opposition Members to complain at great length about lack of time, and while I do not want to detain the House, I must make it clear that we do not believe that such timetabling is the right way for business to be conducted. As has been pointed out on a number of previous occasions, the motion is a sign of the Government's discourtesy.
Paragraph 4 of the motion states:
Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Last week, when the House considered a similar motion in relation to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he was not familiar with that aspect of Sessional Orders. He made inquiries and discussed the matter with the Clerks, and discovered that the
Sessional Orders do not merely provide for, but are supposed to insist on, the creation of a Programming Committee, which comprises several individuals almost as of right and meets explicitly and exclusively to determine the allocation of time when considering a Bill on Report and on Third Reading."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 200.]
That Government are now inviting the House to disapply that Sessional Order and to substitute for a Committee and proper cross-party discussion a brief motion that they doubtless intend to ram through on their payroll vote.
If the Minister is sincere about the need to be open-minded about the workings of the new procedure, it is extraordinary that neither he, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, nor the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), a Government Whip—who, as he should


be, is currently silent—has made any attempt to communicate with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who was the Opposition Whip on the Standing Committee, with me, or with any other Conservative who served on the Committee about the allocation of time for Report. They have ignored Sessional Orders, and devised a cheeky form of words enabling them to insist on devoting only an hour or so to the remainder of the Bill.

Mr. Hanson: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman inadvertently to mislead the House. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) that he discussed the matter with both the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

Mr. Walter: I cannot comment on what happens through the usual channels, but I understand from my discussions with those gentlemen that there was no agreement on the amount of time to be allocated. I understand that a discussion may well have taken place, to which I was not party but which—as is often the case when discussions take place with Ministers and Whips—was rather one-sided. I understand that it was a case of, "This is our business. We propose that this will happen. Of course, you will have every opportunity to discuss it during the debate on the programme motion."
That, clearly, is what we are doing now. We are debating the programme motion, and the probity of it. As I have said, however, I think it extraordinary that the Government should use their solid majority to overrule the rights of the House. It is wholly unacceptable for the Government, at the beginning of a Session, to introduce Sessional Orders permitting a programming Committee to decide on the length and content of debate on Report, and then to table a motion asking us to disapply those orders a bare few months later, in favour of a motion severely limiting our discussions on Report and Third Reading.
No amount of protest from Labour Members about there being cross-party agreement on the need for the Bill will change the fact that the Government have treated the House with disdain, indifference and contempt. The allocation of time is unsatisfactory. This is not a proper way for the House to do business, and it is not a way for the Opposition, or Labour Back Benchers, to scrutinise the Government's legislation.
I am sorry that Ministers do not take their legislative responsibilities as seriously as they might, but my hon. Friends and I do, and I know that Labour Back Benchers who served on the Standing Committee, in particular, took theirs exceedingly seriously. The many Members who also take their responsibilities seriously, and who share my view that inadequate time has been allocated, will doubtless wish to register their concerns shortly.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I oppose the motion. I regret to say that I have had to oppose such motions many times since we returned from the Christmas recess at the beginning of January. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I oppose programme motions

because I think they are wrong in principle. We will not refrain from protesting about them and voting against them, even if in a particular instance there is enough time for debate, and even if the time taken by discussion of a programme motion is subtracted from time for the substantive debate.
A number of us find this deeply offensive. I shall articulate again the reasons why: they are very similar to the reasons that I have given on many occasions in the last few months. The first applies not only to this Bill but to any Bill that is the subject of a programme motion. The basis on which accountable government works, and the reason for people's willingness, in a political commonwealth, to accept legislation that has passed through the House, is the belief of those people that the legislation has been properly scrutinised by their elected representatives. The plain truth is, however—this cannot be said too often—that a timetable motion prevents a Bill from being properly scrutinised by their elected representatives. In time the electorate will come to recognise that, and when they do they will appreciate that the existing legislative process is a farce—and a disgraceful and shameful farce at that.
My first and, I believe, wholly compelling objection to programme motions is that important legislation is not properly scrutinised. My second objection is also one of principle. It was hinted at—in fact, expressly stated—by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) when he said that amendments might be necessary, but that they would be tabled in another place.
There are at least three comments to be made about that. First, I think that my hon. Friend felt obliged to say what he did because he did not think we would have enough time today to discuss properly the amendments that he had in mind. That is shameful. I do not mean that my hon. Friend's action was shameful; I mean that it is shameful that he should have been put in such a position. Surely substantive amendments tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench should be debated here, not in the other place.
That was my main point. My second is this: amendments will be debated in the other place, and possibly passed; they will then come back to this elected House, where they will be debated again—if at all—on a very tight timetable motion. As a consequence, proper measures of change will not be properly debated in an elected Chamber. That cannot be right.

Mr. Win Griffiths: How often did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make this speech when his party tabled guillotine motions during its time in office?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time. He will remember what happened under the last Government, of whom I was a member for 13 years. We did not guillotine Committee stages until 100 hours or so of debate had taken place. It was not our practice to guillotine Committee stages; nor was it our practice, as a matter of routine, to put down timetable motions on Report. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was plainly misconceived.
Those of us who are interested in parliamentary government—representative, accountable government—are deeply concerned about the fact that the Chamber is increasingly deserted. There is a reason for that, although


it is not the only reason. The hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) points to the Conservative Back Benches. That is fair enough; I now point to his.
If a debate is confined to a few minutes, an hour and a half or whatever, Members who might otherwise wish to participate will know full well that they will not have a chance to do so, or that they will be sat on by Whips from one side or the other. That is a way of reducing the amount of debate in this place. If debate is restricted by artificial limits, there will not be Members in the Chamber. I consider that process extremely dangerous.
I think it was the Minister who, quite fairly, pointed out that only two new clauses had been selected. It is possible—I made the point earlier—that in this instance there is time enough to consider them. I do not pretend that I have followed the debate on this particular Bill very closely.

Mr. Forth: I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to be so generous. He will note that six, seven or eight Members are present, and they may wish to speak. Two new clauses have been selected; two times six or seven is 12 or 14; we have been given only an hour. Even my right hon. and learned Friend may rapidly conclude, having divided an hour by 14, that only a few minutes will be left for each Member to consider the new clauses. In all conscience, does he consider that adequate?

Mr. Hogg: It may or may not be adequate. I am not trying to pretend that I have been following the debate on the Bill very closely. I am prepared to accept, as a basis for argument, that on this occasion there might be adequate time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says that that is not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset has already made the point that he will have to cause amendments to be tabled in another place because there is not sufficient time to debate them here. Perhaps my assumption is, therefore, unduly generous.

Mr. Walter: If I may correct my right hon. and learned Friend slightly, he will see from the amendment paper that three new clauses and two amendments were tabled. Although it is not for me or any other hon. Member to question the Speaker's judgment in selecting amendments for debate, I suspect that the allocation of time was such that Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, could choose only two amendments for discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Mr. Speaker would select the amendments that he thought appropriate. He would not be influenced by the time available.

Mr. Walter: I withdraw my suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hogg: I was proceeding on the basis that the Speaker's selection was as it is, and I was not seeking to go beyond that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset makes a sound point in saying that amendments will have to be tabled in another place because of the restriction of time. That is a serious observation.
Although it is true that there are only two new clauses to debate, hon. Members often use debates on particular amendments or new clauses as an occasion on which to articulate concerns arising out of the issues that are their subject. That is an important mechanism, whereby hon. Members can bring to the Floor of the House constituency-based problems and refer to them in the debates on new clauses. If one cuts down such debate, either by cutting the number of new clauses to be debated or by restricting the time available, the opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to articulate such concerns is inevitably lost. That is a sad state of affairs.
I must also remind the House that the first occasion on which the House as a whole has the opportunity to discuss the detail of any Bill is on Report. We are frequently told by Ministers—no doubt the same thing happened when I was on the Government Front Bench—that the new clauses are but a reflection of what was promised in Committee. That may be true, but it does not satisfy or conclude the argument, because that is the first occasion on which the House as a whole—even if we are but 12 in number now—can consider those new clauses and amendments. Promises, assurances or statements made in Committee are neither here nor there, so far as hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee are concerned. A process is being put in place that tramples on democracy.
I know that I have said all this before, and I shall say it again. At the root of the matter, democracy is being denied. The Government are denying democracy and deliberately trampling on it. That is a scandal, and I shall take every opportunity to bring that fact to the attention of the country. I hope that at the forthcoming election, the people of this country will understand that this is a tyrannical and despotic Government.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The programme motion offers a brief timetable for seeing the Bill through. I have seen crocodile tears being shed, and a bit of a song and dance going on, rather like in a university debating society. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that an important principle is at stake, and there is no doubt about that.
Two new clauses have been selected; there are eight clauses in the Bill. Two other possible amendments were tabled for debate, but not selected. The Government have decided to pass the Bill in its entirety without accepting any amendments—or, at least, not wanting any votes on them. The reason is that the Bill impinges on constitutional issues relating to the Government of Wales Act 1998, and perhaps we shall get to the bottom of some of them in the short debate that follows this one. I do not think that the Government will give way on any of them because there are important legal principles at stake, but I am sure that they will be examined in great detail in another place. We shall see what the Bill looks like when it returns to the House and we debate the Lords amendments.
Most hon. Members agree on the need for an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales, and the Liberal Democrats do not want to delay that process. However, we also want the best possible independent Children's Commissioner, who will serve the children of


Wales and in Wales. There is undoubtedly an element of determination behind the Bill, and it would be better for us to get on and to debate it on Third Reading. This is no time for pontificating; it is time for getting on.

Mr. Eric Forth: I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on this matter. It is incumbent on the House, each time the Government introduce a programme motion, to give it proper consideration. However, these programme motions are guillotines: we are being subjected to serial guillotines.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rather mischievously implied that such proceedings had been perfectly routine under the previous Conservative Government, and that things were no different now. The hon. Gentleman's brain has obviously been addled by his years in Europe. He must remember that, during the glorious 18 years of the previous Government, when a Bill had had very lengthy consideration in Committee and been gratuitously obstructed by the Labour party in opposition, the then Government would introduce a motion to curtail debate and to move on. However, the Labour Government have routinely guillotine Bills from the off before having any idea of the likely length of time needed for proper consideration in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. That is a key difference, which I hope that even the hon. Member for Bridgend will concede on reflection.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman also served in Europe. I do not want to cast aspersions on his time there and the effect on his brain. However, does he recall the time when we served on a Committee that considered an education Bill in 1992–93? The proceedings were guillotined well before the 100 hours to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred as the magic number that the previous Government had used.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have perfectly civilised relations outside the Chamber. Perhaps we could settle the matter over a cup of tea. I remember matters differently. When I first became a Member of Parliament in 1983, along with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not unusual for a large Bill—the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred had approximately 350 clauses and 50 schedules—to receive 150 or more hours of consideration in Committee before a guillotine was even suggested. Guillotines were introduced after less time much later. However, today we are discussing not hours, but minutes. We are being allowed only minutes in which to consider key stages of a Bill.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) to agree with the Minister that the proceedings were consensual and chummy and that people were on first name terms and so on. That is beside the point. Every Bill deserves proper scrutiny. The more horrendously consensual the approach, the more scrutiny the measure deserves. Some of the worst legislation to emanate from this place had the ghastly appellation,

"all-party support". In the legislative world, there is nothing worse than a Bill with all-party support. It inevitably ends up as sloppy, loose and damaging.
It is not good enough to say that the Lords will sort matters out after we have been happily consensual, failed to do our job, or rushed matters through for political reasons or because we believed that a particular measure would be attractive to the electorate. It is even worse to rush through a measure because we believe it has a title that is too good to oppose. All those reasons apply to the Bill. It is unacceptable to rely on Tony's cronies, the unelected Members of another place, properly to scrutinise a Bill that we have fiddled through.
Let me remind hon. Members of the Government's intention. They tell us that we have from 5.15 to 6.15 pm on Report; they allow the House of Commons only one hour. It has been pointed out that the amendment paper contains two new clauses. New clauses are serious provisions and deserve proper scrutiny. The fact that they have been selected shows that they are important and deserve the House's full attention.
It is possible that 400 hon. Members could turn up in the next half hour, pack the Chamber and want to contribute, as they are entitled to do, to consideration of new clauses 2 and 3. My arithmetical ability just about extends to making the calculation: 400 Members of Parliament, each considering two new clauses in an hour. There is not enough time for each hon. Member to have a proper opportunity to do that.
To be fair, the position that I outlined was theoretical. Let us consider the real position. Three Labour Back Benchers, one Plaid Cymru Member, one Liberal Democrat and, happily, four Opposition Back Benchers are present. Even if no other hon. Member attends the debate, seven or eight hon. Members may wish to participate. Seven hon. Members multiplied by two new clauses is 14. Sixty minutes divided by 14 equals a maximum of four or five minutes for each hon. Member to make a contribution on the new clauses.
I do not know whether Labour Back Benchers believe that they can represent their constituents adequately on the matter that we are considering. I am sure that they will return to their constituencies and issue press releases that state that the matter is very important, the Government are wonderful, the atmosphere is consensual, the public are lucky to have the Bill and that they have been dying for such a measure. I bet they do not add, "By the way, I had four minutes to discuss it on your behalf in the House of Commons." However, that is the time that the Government are allowing hon. Members to discuss the matter on behalf of their constituents. It is inadequate; hon. Members should not be put in that position. I almost feel sorry for Labour Members when I think of them having to account to their electors for their Government allowing them only four minutes each to consider the new clauses.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the point further aggravated by the fact that we are considering new clauses? In effect, our proceedings will constitute Second Reading of the new clauses. What has happened to the Committee stage? There will be no detailed discussion, and that makes the position even worse.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I will not discuss the substance of the new clauses


because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want me to do so. However, new clause 2 says that the commissioner
may at any time give advice to the Assembly".
That could be worth discussing. It might even be somewhat controversial.

New clause 3 talks about
requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies.
That is important. Allowing somebody called a commissioner access to institutions smacks of what we thought we had put behind us. The commissioner will have access to institutions with the power of statute behind him. At the very least, that requires considerable thought. I wish we could table amendments to the new clauses, because I would be tempted to do so. In fact, that would have to be done by Tony's cronies at the other end of the building, not by the elected House of Commons. The more we consider this matter, the worse it becomes.
The Minister thought that he was being clever when he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset and asked why, if there was so much interest, there were not more amendments. My hon. Friend pointed out that amendments were tabled and were not selected. We cannot discuss or challenge that, but that is not my point. My point reflects that made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The tragedy is that, because hon. Members know that the Government will allow only an hour for the Report stage of a Bill such as this, I suspect that many of them say, "What on earth is the point of tabling amendments when they will almost certainly not receive proper consideration?".

Mr. Hogg: We know that to be the case because my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said as much in respect of his amendments.

Mr. Forth: There is growing evidence that the arrogant automatic guillotining of legislation in advance of our knowing the nature of the Bill or its amendments or the amount of interest in it—we see it happening before our eyes—is throttling and diminishing hon. Members' interest and participation in the legislative process. There can be no worse condemnation of what the Government are gratuitously doing to this House and the legislative process than the fact that more and more Members of Parliament are being persuaded that they have no role in the legislative process. They are reduced to asking the Prime Minister cringing, sycophantic questions on the few occasions when he appears at the Dispatch Box, and to doing other trivial things. As a result of this ruthless guillotine process, all-party groups are proliferating because those poor creatures do not have anywhere else to go and have nothing to do in the Chamber.
It is not my place to feel sorry for Government Back Benchers, but occasionally I do. They have to go back to their constituency and say, "Don't worry, I took part today in the all-party group on chocolate. You can be assured that I am representing your interests at Westminster because I have attended several important all-party groups on all sorts of important matters." If someone asks whether they participated in the legislative process or scrutinised the Government, they have to say, "No, I did not have time. I worked out that I would have less than a minute to make my contribution on your behalf if I

ventured into the Chamber." That conversation will be taking place up and down the country as hon. Members try to give an account of themselves. I bet they are not out spinning or boasting about how much they have influenced the Government. I bet they are telling their constituents that the all-party group on chocolate was as far as they got.
All in all, we find ourselves in a desperate situation. I share—I often do—the sentiment and undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham: that each of the programme motions stands on its own and requires the same amount of attention and debate. If I can, I will participate in a Division or, if necessary invite the House—

Mr. Allan Rogers: I always enjoy the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to fill up time. I have enjoyed those attempts in Europe, and I enjoy them here. However, I do wish that he would not present the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) as a great martyr—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 254, Noes 134.

Division No. 112]
[5 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cawsey, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ashton, Joe
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Banks, Tony
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, lain


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
(B'ham Hodge H)


Bradshaw, Ben
Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Denham, John


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drown, Ms Julia


Caplin, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth






Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McIsaac, Shona


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Edwards, Huw
Mactaggart, Fiona


Efford, Clive
McWalter, Tony


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McWilliam, John


Ennis, Jeff
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Etherington, Bill
Mallaber, Judy


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Follett, Barbara
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Miller, Andrew


Galloway, George
Mitchell, Austin


Gardiner, Barry
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Godsiff, Roger
(B'ham Yardley)


Goggins, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Golding, Mrs Llin
(Aberavon)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mountford, Kali


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Norris, Dan


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Healey, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Olner, Bill


Hendrick, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Hepburn, Stephen
Organ, Mrs Diana


Heppell, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hill, Keith
Perham, Ms Linda


Hinchliffe, David
Pickthall, Colin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Plaskitt, James


Hoey, Kate
Pollard, Kerry


Hope, Phil
Pond, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Robertson, John


Joyce, Eric
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kemp, Fraser
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sarwar, Mohammad


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Lepper, David
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shaw, Jonathan


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Love, Andrew
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCabe, Steve
Skinner, Dennis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


(Makerfield)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Macdonald, Calum
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonnell, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Soley, Clive





Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wareing, Robert N


Stoate, Dr Howard
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
(Swansea W)


(Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wilson, Brian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Don Touhig and Mr. Ian Pearson.


Turner, Neil (Wigan)



NOES


Allan, Richard
Greenway, John


Amess, David
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hammond, Philip


Beggs, Roy
Ham's, Dr Evan


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Hayes, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heald, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hunter, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burnett, John
Leigh, Edward


Burns, Simon
Letwin, Oliver


Burstow, Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lidington, David


(Chipping Barnet)
Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


(Rushcliffe)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cotter, Brian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cran, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Major, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, lain
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fallon, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Right, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Paice, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Rendel, David


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Ruffley, David


Gidley, Sandra
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sayeed, Jonathan


Green, Damian
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian






Shepherd, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Walter, Robert


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waterson, Nigel


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Stunell, Andrew
Willetts, David


Swayne, Desmond
Willis, Phil


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, William



Townend, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. James Gray and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


Trend, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16th January:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Six o'clock.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock.

4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
(b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2

ADVICE TO ASSEMBLY AND TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES

'The Commissioner may at any time give advice to the Assembly on—

(a) any changes which the Commissioner thinks should be made, for the purpose of securing improvement in the quality of services provided by the Assembly or local authorities in Wales in the exercise of their functions; or
(b) any other matter connected with the exercise by the Assembly or local authorities in Wales of their functions,

where the exercise of those functions affects children.'.—[Mr. Walter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert Walter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As was stated in our deliberations on the programme motion, the basic principle of the Bill is not a matter for great debate across the Chamber. In fact, there was a great deal of agreement in Committee about what we wanted to achieve. However, we failed to get the Government to agree to widen the scope of the role of the Children's Commissioner in a number of areas. New clause 2 is part of our general aim of widening the scope of the commissioner's role.
We believe that the Children's Commissioner should have the widest possible powers available to him to enable him to carry out the role of advocate for children in Wales and to look at cases of abuse and the whole range of children's rights, particularly those contained within the UN conventions to which we have signed up. I shall not deal with those points now, because they are outside the scope of the new clause, but no doubt there will be passing references to them on Third Reading.
The new clause deals with the advice that the commissioner can and should give to the Assembly and to local authorities. The Bill as drafted states only that the commissioner may review the effect on children of the exercise of functions of the Assembly or other people. Our new clause goes much further, allowing him to give advice on changes to improve the quality of services provided. The new clause includes all local authorities, while the schedule refers only to county councils and county borough councils.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's new clause makes an important statement about the functions of the commissioner. However, as clause 2 gives the commissioner extremely wide-ranging powers, is that not sufficient to cover the points that he raises? The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with clause 2, but I remind the House that it amends section 72 of the Care Standards Act 2000 and that it states:
The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is developing into a speech. I think that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will have understood the point that is being made.

Mr. Walter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before tabling the new clause, we were of course cognisant of the existing wording of the Bill. However, we did not feel that it was sufficient to achieve the purpose that the new clause is intended to serve. Although I am intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), his short intervention does not convince me that the existing clause meets that purpose.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the reason why the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is wrong that clause 2 is only a statement of the purpose or objective of the commissioner and does not actually give the commissioner powers? It is the new clause that would confer powers on the commissioner.

Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly noted that we are trying in the new clause to give the commissioner powers that were not previously conferred.
We discussed the matter in Committee, although we did not force it, or any other matter, to a vote. In Committee, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey)—who is in the Chamber and who may want to speak—moved an amendment stating that
The Commissioner may make appropriate representations…about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales.
He said:
It would mean that the remit of the commissioner could encompass all aspects of the rights and welfare of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales. The amendment would allow the commissioner to be a truly independent watchdog and champion of children, and would strengthen the Bill in four key ways."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 23 January 2001; c. 61.]
We expressed our concern that the definition in that amendment was far too wide. It would have allowed the commissioner to comment on anything, including family life. We have always made clear our anxiety about such an extension to the commissioner's powers.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The motives behind the new clause are laudable. We want to improve the quality of the services. However, would the provision not create even more confusion concerning who exactly was responsible for certain matters? The new clause refers to giving advice; that is extremely subjective—such advice could easily be ignored. It refers to the quality of services. What is the quality of services? Perhaps the drafting of the Bill is at fault because it is not tight enough but perhaps there should be some reciprocity in the process.

Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman is correct that there is a fault in the drafting, which is why we are proposing the new clause. I hope that, as I develop my argument, the hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be a useful addition to the Bill and to the scope of the Children's Commissioner.
If the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire in Committee had been taken at face value, it would have allowed the commissioner to take upon himself powers to act rather like a health education authority. He would have been able to set out what was good practice and to tell parents that good

practice was to do X, Y and Z. We do not want him to do that. It is right that he should consider child abuse in the home and, as we argued in Committee, problems in non-devolved bodies and cross-border issues. However, we were concerned that he should not somehow become the arbiter of good practice in bringing up children in normal family situations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said in Committee, it is clear that, under that amendment, the Children's Commissioner could say anything about anything. We have made it clear that we do not wish the commissioner to be handcuffed, but confusion could arise about whether he could make pronouncements willy-nilly about family life styles and so on. That is not to say that we do not want him to refer to abuse that takes place in the home. We want his remit to cover abuse; what we do not want is for him to have a general remit that covers the various types and qualities of family life styles.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, under new clause 2, the commissioner could make representations about the adequacy of services for homosexual young people or young people who are seriously questioning their sexuality?

Mr. Walter: New clause 2 would give the commissioner the power to advise local authorities about the services that they provide for children. If a local authority offers services specifically geared towards children who are in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that would fall within the Children Commissioner's remit. However, giving advice in those circumstances to children in a normal family environment would not fall within his remit.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Walter: I am very conscious of the fact that, as we said in the debate on the programme motion, there is only a limited amount of time available. However, I understand that hon. Members want to intervene, so I shall give way—briefly, I hope—to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).

Mr. Llwyd: Is not the crux of the argument whether the definition of the word "review" includes giving advice? Local authorities and the Assembly are, by virtue of schedule 2, bodies that come under the Bill. If the Minister were to say that the word "review" included giving advice, new clause 2 might be otiose. It is up to the Minister to respond on that point.

Mr. Walter: I shall obviously be interested in the Minister's response, but I do not think that using the word "review" necessarily means that the commissioner can advise local authorities. That is the reason why we have tabled new clause 2. We believe that the commissioner should have the power to give advice to local authorities.

Mr. Rogers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I become very disturbed when he talks about closing down the commissioner's remit on what he terms


normal family situations. Given that most abuse takes place within families—what happens in institutions is dramatic and should not take place—the general suggestion that families should be left alone will leave many thousands of children vulnerable. I should be very much disturbed if the commissioner's remit were not extend to that

Mr. Walter: What disturbs me is the suggestion that most families are somehow guilty until proven innocent in such matters. Clearly, the commissioner's responsibilities include child abuse that takes place in family situations. Those powers are already vested in local authorities and social services departments; they already exist. The concern that we expressed on Second Reading and in Committee was that the commissioner would suddenly become the arbiter of good practice within a family situation. It is quite right that the commissioner should be the arbiter of good practice for children in care and children at risk, but not in a normal family situation.
5.30 pm
I fear that we have digressed. The new clause would cover the issues that I have mentioned and would deal with any function that the Assembly carried out in relation to children. It would also deal with incidents in which the Assembly failed to carry out a duty. There was broad agreement in Committee on that aim. I recall that the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru representatives and some Labour Back Benchers all supported the aim and moved similar amendments to try to force this principle through. The Government made little response to our arguments in Committee, but this new clause would strengthen the powers of the commissioner and would be very much in the interests of children in Wales.

Mr. Llwyd: I shall be brief. By virtue of schedule 2A, the National Assembly and local government are bodies that come under the general purview of the clause. Therefore, the commissioner will have a right to review the exercise of functions by the Assembly and other persons, including local government.
I support the general thrust of the new clause; at the very least, it is a good probing new clause. The issue turns on whether the word "review" includes giving advice. In my respectful submission, it is inconceivable that the word "review" would not include giving advice. If the commissioner were to review a situation that was far from tolerable or far from acceptable and he were unable to give advice, his post would be virtually worthless. He would merely report, but would not be able to make recommendations. That would fly in the face of the Welsh Assembly's document, "A Children's Commissioner for Wales", which says:
We want the Commissioner to ensure that children and young people are listened to and enabled to play an active part",
and that they come into
policy-making, planning processes, and provision for all relevant services.
The Minister would persuade hon. Members fairly easily if he said that the word "review" included the giving of advice. I find it inconceivable that it should not. If it does, I suggest, with respect to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), that the new clause might be otiose.

Ms Julie Morgan: I shall speak briefly to agree generally with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd

Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I, too, find it inconceivable that the word "review" would not cover the suggestions that are made in the new clause.
The remarks of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on the family are a distraction from what the Bill seeks to do. It reflects badly on the Conservative party that it has taken this opportunity to throw up this issue. We should concentrate on the wording of the new clause, and I think that its provisions are covered by the current wording of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I apologise for not taking part in the proceedings on the Bill's earlier stages. I once worked as a social worker in a children's home and, as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I have taken a keen interest in the early years of children's development. A few weeks ago, the Committee published a report on that subject.
A couple of years ago in the House I raised the issue of au pairs. I mention that for the following reason. There are many areas over which the commissioner has not been given jurisdiction but where, nevertheless, children may be at risk of harm. On the other hand, the commissioner has been given jurisdiction over, for example, the behaviour of teachers. Teachers are governed by the law of the land and are extremely well trained in handling children. One of the advantages of new clause 2 is that it would be possible for the commissioner to advise the Assembly on new areas to which his jurisdiction might be extended. I have in mind the issue of child carers.
During the Select Committee inquiry into the situation in Wales, as well as in England, we understood there to be something of a conflict. On the one hand, there is the need to have the highest quality of child care in the home so that mothers who want to work can do so. On the other hand, many working mothers do not attract a high level of pay. If the costs of paying for child care rise too much because the standards required are so high, many mothers who can now afford child care in the home will not be able to do so. If the commissioner were to recommend that his jurisdiction should extend into that sphere, I hope that that conflict, which is particularly relevant in Wales where low pay is an issue, would be borne in mind.
An issue arose in relation to au pairs two years ago, and I warned the Government about it. It continues in my constituency. Agencies that are active there but serve the whole country tell me that there is a problem. Since August 1997, au pairs have no longer been required to register with the police once they have been here for six months. That has had a bad effect on how we keep checks on that level of child care. Although we want to encourage cultural exchange with other countries—that is the purpose of the au pair scheme—inexperienced young people come to look after our children and the authorities have no idea whether they are doing the job properly. A commissioner given an advisory role in the Assembly could look into such matters and advise the Assembly that, although the Government in Whitehall were not prepared to reintroduce a registration system for au pairs, it might be appropriate in Wales.
The Select Committee also looked into the issue of smacking children. The all-party Select Committee has striven in all cases to reach a unanimous view by the time


we produce a report—despite evidence today on another report. We took a great deal of evidence on smacking by child carers and whether it should be regulated by law. Many of us who instinctively feel that there should never be a law against parents smacking—what parents do to their children will always be restrained by love—nevertheless believe that there should be a legal restraint on child carers. That was the Committee's unanimous decision.
While we were reaching that decision, and the Minister concerned knew that we were reaching it, she conducted her own focus group research of a few hundred parents and concluded, based on that very small group, that it would be unpopular. Without waiting for our recommendation, she declared that there would be no such restraint on child carers.

Ms Julie Morgan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that at this very moment a consultation exercise is taking place in Wales about whether child carers should be allowed to smack children in their care. The indications are that in Wales it will not be allowed.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I welcome that information. I was not aware of it, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
If we are to have a Children's Commissioner for Wales, we would want the commissioner to be involved in consultation in this area. It is not clear to me whether, in the absence of new clause 2, it will be possible for the commissioner to play a formal role rather than a series of informal roles, which I gather the Minister has intimated during previous proceedings would be appropriate. If we are to have a formal post, and it is to be paid, there should be formal responsibilities.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have only a few insights to offer. I am sure that we should not be proceeding with such haste in respect of Wales without also considering the situation in England. If the new commissioner were to be given a wider remit under new clause 2, I would hope that he could give advice to the National Assembly for Wales on how to tell the Westminster Parliament—and, so long as we have a Labour Government for the next few months, a Labour Government—how to get its act together so that we have consistent provision of advice and a consistent framework so that children moving from one part of the country to another are given a seamless service by those in charge of them.

Mr. Rogers: As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the new clause is useful in that it enables us to consider various issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that any review should mean advice, or that the commissioner has the right to give advice beyond that. However, I am disturbed by some of the supporting arguments of Opposition Members, especially the continual reiterating of the argument that the commissioner does not really have a role within the family structure.
My first reservation, as I said in Committee, is that I would hate to see a tsar of child care telling local authorities that they must do this and that. Local authorities must be left to do their job, but they have

manifestly failed to do so. That is why we are introducing the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales. If the commissioner is to be able to do anything, he must be in a position to lay down what is good practice. He must then ensure that local authorities implement at least that minimum level of good practice.
The Opposition are putting forward the idea that there will be somebody knocking at the door of family homes in the middle of the night and prying. That is nonsensical. As most child abuse takes place in families, there must be a way of adopting that approach eventually, but the commissioner does not need to do it. We must ensure that local authorities carry out their duties.

Mr. Walter: By means of the new clause, 1we want the commissioner to be able to give advice to local authorities on good practice. Part of good practice is being able to pick up at an early stage any cases of child abuse which, under current legislation, would come within the remit of the local authority's social services department. My references to the commissioner not being intrusive on the family were with respect to an amendment tabled in Committee which would have given him the power to lay down good practice within families, which I think is inappropriate.

Mr. Rogers: I beg to differ on that issue.
I return to the substance of the new clause. I have reservations about just giving advice and the quality of the process. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the fact that there is not any feedback or reciprocity in the suggested process. One can give advice ad nauseam, but whether it is taken up and acted on is another matter. Until the commissioner has a specific function in that respect, there will always be a weakness in the general process.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall make just a few points, as most of those that I was going to make have already been made. I stress that it is important that the new clause broadens and extends powers. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) rightly pointed to amendments that I tabled in Committee, which extended powers much more widely than does new clause 2.
Obviously, "advice" is the key word. Reference has been made to the quality and standard of services provided by the Assembly and local authorities. If there is to be a children's champion—a Children's Commissioner for Wales—he must oversee a service with an extremely high standard. My experience of local authorities in Wales is that, on the whole, they are conscientious and want to carry out their tasks. Very often, however, they are underfunded. The standards and improvements that the commissioner would, I am sure, wish to instate will sometimes not be attainable because of lack of funding.
Two issues are involved. Crucially, funding of the National Assembly for Wales, which comes via the Welsh block, is decided here through negotiations and is eventually negotiated by the Secretary of State with the Assembly. There ought to be provision in the Welsh block to achieve adequate funding of local authorities and social


services departments within those authorities. That funding often varies because of the different priorities of different local authorities in Wales.
The role of the Children's Commissioner should include being able to give advice so that standards are maintained and improved. I should like to think that the new clause is a probing one, which tries to ensure that that would be brought about. By the same token, that could be solved by the Minister responding to our debate with a clear statement that "review" and "advice" are virtually the same thing, and that advice can be freely given by the Children's Commissioner for the benefit of children.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I hope that I will be able to satisfy hon. Members on the points that they have made to the Government. I respect the views of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on the matters that he raised. However, on reflection, I hope that he, other Opposition Members and my hon. Friends will accept that there is little difference of view—dare I say, no difference?—between the Government and Opposition Members on the principle behind new clause 2. I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset will accept my assurance that the power to give the advice envisaged is already encompassed in the Bill.
Clause 3 introduces a new power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the exercise of any function of the Assembly and of any function of local authorities, as well as other public bodies listed in schedule 2A. That power includes reviewing the effect of the provision of services. Indeed, as has been mentioned, clause 2 states:
The principal aim of the Commissioner is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned, the Government believe both that the commissioner will be able to report on the outcome of his reviews and that his reports can include recommendations and advice for action. I very much share the view of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—and the spirit in which it was expressed—that that is the intention of the Bill; I hope that it reflects the intention of the Opposition's new clause.
The commissioner may also give advice and information to any person in connection with his functions. The Bill therefore provides fully for the intention of the new clause. Indeed, I envisage that giving such advice will be one of the commissioner's central functions. That is the hope of the Government and the National Assembly.
I shall try to cover the points raised in the debate. The key point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Dorset, relates to family policy. The National Assembly for Wales considered the matter. In its report on the Children's Commissioner, the Health and Social Services Committee recommended that the commissioner should focus on policies and services that affect children.
In the Assembly debate on the report, which took place on 7 June last year, it was accepted that it was not the intention that the commissioner should exercise functions, such as investigations, in respect of families. Those powers are rightly held by different bodies accountable to the Assembly.
That does not mean that the commissioner will never comment on issues that affect family life. There are many issues affecting children on which he may want to bring broad conclusions to the attention of the Assembly or, informally, to the attention of Government. I remind the hon. Member for North Dorset that his colleague in the Assembly, David Melding, helpfully clarified the fact that a fully effective Children's Commissioner will be available to offer great support to parents, without undermining the responsibility of the family in any way. Given the general principle that we held throughout Committee—that it is not the prime function of the commissioner to investigate individual cases—I hope that I have dealt with the point.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has left the Chamber, as he contributed to our short debate. He mentioned a range of issues relating to child care. I hope that he will reflect on what I shall say when he has an opportunity to read Hansard on the train in the near future.
Provided that the services are regulated by the National Assembly, the commissioner has a direct responsibility, under the Bill, to examine those areas. For areas not regulated by the Assembly, he does not have that direct responsibility, and those are areas that we can consider.
I had intended to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Guildford about England, but as he is not present I shall leave that for another day. Perhaps he will reflect on his contribution and consider whether he wants to write to me about those matters. He spoke only seven or eight minutes ago, so it is important that he should allow the Government the opportunity to respond.
The final point relates to the fact that the post of commissioner is a statutory office. It therefore has functions conferred upon it by law, but those functions are guided by the principle that the National Assembly for Wales has responsibilities, which are the areas that the commissioner will examine.
As I said repeatedly in Committee, in the course of his work the commissioner may receive representations on a range of issues, including non-devolved matters. The commissioner is perfectly entitled to bring those matters to the attention of the relevant Government Departments. That does not give him substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor will he have formal power to require information in relation to such matters, but he will be able to make informal comments.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Guildford is back. I was not trying to disparage him in his absence, but I have responded to some of the points raised in his contribution. I hope that he will read my response.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for being temporarily absent from the Chamber.

Mr. Hanson: In the spirit of close co-operation that existed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I graciously accept that. None of my comments were intended to disparage the hon. Gentleman, but in his absence it was difficult to respond to his comments.
I shall deal now with the hon. Gentleman's point about England. Obviously, the Bill is the product of devolution. The National Assembly and the Government are working in partnership to establish a Children's Commissioner for


Wales. I understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly has expressed the wish to establish a children's commissioner for Northern Ireland. The British Government will examine the implications and reflect on that as it relates to Government policy for England. The Scottish Executive will also have opportunities to reflect in due course.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for North Dorset. I emphasise my belief that there is no difference of view between the Government and the Opposition on the principle of the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it to a Division, that he accepts my explanation and that he will ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Walter: I am conscious that only 20 minutes remain because of the pernicious guillotine under which we are working, so I shall not say an awful lot. I accept the Under-Secretary's assurances and I hope that the practice of the commissioner will allow him to give the advice that we sought to insert in the Bill through the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INSTITUTIONS

'( ) In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (examination of cases) before paragraph (a) insert—
(a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies;".'—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the new clause. The Standing Committee's debate on access and the helpful letter that the Under-Secretary circulated to its members mean that we can deal with the proposal within the time allowed.
During the debate in Committee, it was recognised that the hierarchy of supervisions, if I can call it that, already contained provision for the social services inspectorate to access institutions in which children were in care. However, one of the points made by the Waterhouse report was that the social services inspectorate sometimes did not do its job properly. Hon. Members were concerned that the commissioner might occasionally find it essential or worth while to visit a children's home to get a feel for the issues at stake in a complaint that he is considering, even though that might not happen often. He might want to visit an institution if a complaint had general ramifications for the way in which children's services are provided in Wales. Although it will not be the commissioner's role to investigate each of the complaints that are received, some of them may involve a general concern. He would be acting well within his powers if he were to make an investigation in respect of such complaints.
The Committee listened to the Under-Secretary's words about the role of the social services inspectorate and his assurances that the commissioner would not need to make

such visits very often. He told us that he would consider how the commissioner might ensure that he obtained necessary access. I would like to make other hon. Members aware of the letter that he circulated. In relation to examination of particular cases by the commissioner, the letter states:
given the background that will inform the Assembly's regulations on the types of cases which may be considered, I consider the possibility remote.
It further states that it would be possible for the Assembly to make orders by virtue of regulations under section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000.
After reading the letter, I went on to read that section 74 of that Act ensures that the Assembly would have power to
make provision for the examination by the Commissioner of the cases of particular children to whom this Part applies.
It goes on to state:
The regulations may include provision about…the circumstances in which an examination may be made
and
the procedure for conducting an examination, including provision about the representation of parties.
On reflection, I felt that the Under-Secretary had pointed out a way in which access could be dealt with.
6 pm
In his letter, the Minister wrote:
if the Commissioner considered that his examination of a particular case would be aided by a visit to an establishment that came within his jurisdiction, there would be nothing to prevent him from making an appropriate request to the establishment. Provided the request was reasonable, I think a refusal would be very shortsighted, given the adverse publicity that could ensue.
Could an institution refuse the commissioner permission to visit when his intention to visit related to an issue arising from the public funding of a place in that institution? I am not talking about privately funded institutions, although the Minister might wish to consider issues relating to those. I should not have thought that a publicly funded institution would have the right to refuse the commissioner entry when he was investigating a particular case. However, I am satisfied that the Minister's letter covers the main points.

Mr. Llwyd: Although the hon. Gentleman and I are striving to achieve the same end, I take a contrary view. Surely the inspectorate, rather than the commissioner, would be responsible for any such investigation.

Mr. Griffiths: I was trying to go a step further. We have to assume that the commissioner would want to visit only if there had been a problem with the way in which the inspectorate had conducted its own visit. I want to know whether, in the exceptional circumstances I have cited—given that the places would be publicly funded—an institution could refuse entry to the commissioner. There is also the possibility that the commissioner would want to visit an institution with privately funded places.
I hope the Minister can respond to the points that I have raised.

Mr. Livsey: I want to know how the satisfaction expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend


(Mr. Griffiths) can be wholly realised, and how we can ensure proper access to institutions and proper examination of cases.
In the latter context, the obtaining of information, explanations and assistance is particularly important. Almost regardless of the circumstances, people should have to give the commissioner the necessary information, or require those who hold or are accountable for information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance. That must enable the commissioner to have direct access to institutions.
Standards vary in residential children's homes. Access to such homes is important. The new clause is also relevant to detention centres, although here I am casting the net a bit wider. There are not many detention centres in Wales—I know of only one—and it worries many of us that young people are often miles from their homes, culturally removed and in an alien environment that their parents are unable to visit. That issue—which is currently dealt with under non-devolved regulations—underlines the need in Wales for more facilities of that kind that the Children's Commissioner could examine. The children's ombudspeople in the rest of Europe are empowered to monitor and report on anything affecting children's human rights. Such human rights will be at the forefront of the commissioner's examination of cases that come before him.
The Government have made it clear that the commissioner would not necessarily need the power to enter institutions, and that inspectorates already have the right of access. We debated that issue earlier. However, experience has demonstrated that the greatest risk to children exists in the small number of cases in which the parties are obstructive. The Children's Commissioner would not be involved in the work of such inspectorates, except in the case of an alleged failure.
The Children's Commissioner should have the express power to visit, and have access to, institutions such as residential children's homes, and to obtain information from foster parents—an issue that has not been discussed a great deal—as well as to require bodies or persons to provide information. I should be grateful if the Minister would address those points, because they lie at the crux of the new clause. The jury is out on whether he will be able to convince us.

Ms Julie Morgan: Many of the points that I was going to raise have already been covered, so I shall be brief.
The new clause is important, because the Children's Commissioner should have the specific power of access to institutions, both public and private, in which children are cared for. The issue of the care standards inspectorate has been raised in Committee and in the House. We accept that the inspector's role, as part of a separate agency, is to inspect services for looked-after children, and that the commissioner should not duplicate that role. However, the commissioner should have a specific role in relation to failures of the inspection service.
One of the lessons that we have learned from all the tragedies in Wales and throughout the UK is that children are not always listened to, and that the inspection systems can fail. That is why it is so important that the Children's Commissioner should have the right of access in cases where the inspection system may have failed.
I accept what the Minister said in his letter about the refusal of admittance to any establishment being short-sighted and quite unlikely to happen. However, there have been major scandals in the care system. People who sexually abuse often target the care system and try to get jobs that provide access to vulnerable children. We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening. Although most institutions are very caring places, we know that there is a network of abusers who target the care system. Granting the commissioner the right of access would help in the process of opening up the care system to scrutiny. It would also make a difference to the behaviour of some of the very dangerous people who sometimes get into the system.
The Minister said in his letter that the statutory right to physical access was, by its nature, an invasive power that should be granted only when absolutely necessary. In many cases, the institutions in question would be children's homes, so we should be careful about giving people the power to enter them. However, in view of all the problems that have arisen, an invasive power—as the Minister described it—is necessary. It would not be used willy-nilly. The commissioner will work strategically and would not demand entry to children's homes as a matter of course. The new clause gives the commissioner more teeth and sends a clear signal that we will not tolerate any more abuse in children's homes in Wales. That is an important step towards safeguarding all our children in Wales.

Mr. Llwyd: The third paragraph of the letter that has been mentioned states that the Children's Commissioner's work includes neither regulation nor inspection. I do not take much comfort from that. I accept what is said in a later paragraph about when the inspectorate has failed, but it is a bit late to act at that point, when traumatic reports will doubtless be made.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, we need to allow the commissioner to move in sufficiently early. There is nothing wrong with the new clause; it does not involve duplication. The NSPCC is worried about the matter that we are discussing and supports the new clause. Plant yng Nghymru—Children in Wales—also strongly favours including such a right of access in the Bill.
As the hon. Lady said, some abusers are sophisticated, and every possible measure must be used against them. The new clause constitutes a minor amendment. If the Minister claims that it is substantial and that it somehow alters the Bill, I respectfully remind him that at least two measures that are being considered grant an invasive power. For example, the Vehicles (Crime) Bill grants a new, sweeping power to move into scrap yards and places where number plates are produced. If that is allowed, surely we can permit a power that will protect children who may be at risk. I ask the Minister to reconsider.

Mr. Hanson: I have little time, but I shall try to deal with the points as best I can. First, as I made clear in Committee and in the letter to hon. Members, I want to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has all the necessary powers to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances that led to the Waterhouse report.
The Bill gives the commissioner an impressive armoury. First, he will be able to inquire into, and report on, the actions of the care standards inspectorate. As I


said in my letter, regulations under section 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 grant the commissioner the right to information, explanations and other assistance in making such inquiries. He will be able to inquire into the actions of a body that runs a children's home or an institution and the relevant social services departments. Those inquiries can be strongly supported by the right of access to information, explanations and assistance. Such powers will be more than helpful if the commissioner decides that there is a reason to investigate a social services department or even the care standards inspectorate.
If the commissioner believed that it was necessary for him to visit premises, nothing in the Bill would prevent him from requesting a visit. It is unlikely that such a request would be refused. If that happened, I am sure that the commissioner would make a strong report to the Assembly on the reasons for the refusal and the grounds on which he wanted to examine the premises in the first place.
In answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), all premises, private and public, have the right to refuse the commissioner access. However, let us put that in context. The commissioner would make such a request only because of the failure of the inspectorate system, which he examines. That system will undertake regular inspections; it is the commissioner's duty to inspect the inspectors.
Fewer than 10 per cent. of looked-after children in Wales are in homes; most are in foster care. I hope that the system is sufficiently robust. On the basis of my letter and my comments today, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the reassurance that he has given. Perhaps the Government will reconsider such a provision in another place, but as there are probably powers to enable the Assembly to make appropriate orders, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Hanson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Labour party went into the elections for the National Assembly for Wales committed to the creation of an independent statutory Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Government have shared that commitment by acting swiftly and sympathetically to ensure that the required legislation is put in place. I believe that the whole process has been a testament to successful partnership working between the Government and the Assembly, and—to give credit to those who served on the Committee—between the parties in the House and the Assembly. We achieved a speedy passage of the Bill in Committee and on Report.
Last year, the Government acted quickly to amend what was then the Care Standards Bill to establish the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and to give the commissioner powers that reflected the recommendations in the Waterhouse report. They relate to children's

services regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000, and represented the speediest possible response to Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendation of the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Secretary of State's announcement, made so speedily after Sir Ronald's recommendations in February last year, is a testament to the Government's commitment to tackle child abuse, in partnership with the National Assembly.
Wales now has its first Children's Commissioner, Peter Clarke. I take this opportunity to wish him well in his post, which he will take up on 1 March—just over a year after the publication of the Waterhouse report. The Government have introduced legislation to extend the commissioner's powers in response to the Assembly's vision.
By adding to the scope of the commissioner's functions, the Bill will allow the Assembly to achieve its strategy for a statutory, independent commissioner with a wide-ranging role, who can be—I emphasise this strongly—a champion for all the children and young people in Wales.
The Bill has undergone scrutiny in Committee and I thank Committee members for their constructive contributions. I accept that we have made no amendments, but I believe that there has been an exploration of the Bill and that we have achieved broad consensus around the concept of a Children's Commissioner, which has allowed informed discussion and speedy progress.
I recognise that there are some concerns, but I hope that I have dealt with them in Committee and on Report. There will be opportunities for further discussion in another place—to the satisfaction of all hon. Members of both Houses, I hope.
The Bill will introduce a power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the activities of the Assembly, local authorities, health authorities and other public bodies sponsored by the Assembly. The public bodies concerned are not confined to those primarily concerned with services for children. They encompass a wide range of organisations whose actions may impact upon children, such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Sports Council for Wales and the National Museums and Galleries of Wales.
The Bill will back up the widened role by extending the commissioner's powers under the Care Standards Act 2000 to examine cases of particular children, and to assist in particular cases. I pay tribute to Jane Hutt and her Committee in the Assembly and to the officials who have supported the progress of the Bill. Assembly regulations will be set out in detail, but the role potentially applies to the activities of all bodies referred to in the Bill.
The extent of the commissioner's power to review and monitor arrangements for complaints procedures, whistleblowing and advocacy will also be greatly increased by the Bill. This power will be applied to a far wider group of bodies that provide direct services to children in Wales, including local authorities.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) because I had intended to refer to him in an earlier discussion. He mentioned the problem of funding for local authorities. I can only say—I mean this genuinely—that the £10 billion that the Government have given to the National Assembly as part of the comprehensive spending review represents the most significant increase in public spending in Wales in my


Lifetime—and, I suspect, in the lifetime of every hon. Member. It is for the Assembly to determine its expenditure, but I believe that much of it will go to local authorities to support the work that they are undertaking.
The commissioner's role will extend to local authorities, the NHS, schools and training organisations. Eventually, Assembly regulations will be able to give the commissioner the power to require bodies to provide him with information if they are involved in the investigation of individual cases, or if arrangements for complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy are being monitored. Legal sanctions are already available for failure to comply.
In performing all the functions under clauses 2 and 3, the commissioner will have principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. That is a major step forward for children in Wales, and for the Assembly and the Government. The new functions proposed in the Bill will enable the commissioner to act as a powerful defender of the rights of children. His field will be the whole range of devolved public services in Wales, and his task will be as challenging as it is worth while. I am confident that the Bill will give him the statutory backing that he needs.
The House, the Government and the National Assembly for Wales have to do everything in our power to ensure that the horrors dealt with in the Waterhouse report are never repeated. I believe that the establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the powers that the House and the Assembly wish him to exercise will ensure, as far as we are able to, that those horrors are never repeated.

Mr. Walter: It is unfortunate that our proceedings on the Bill are so rushed. I shall have to keep my remarks relatively brief.
In all our consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I have been consistent and positive in supporting the concept of establishing a Children's Commissioner. I thought that the Minister was a little remiss in claiming credit for the Labour party, while failing to point out that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, established the Waterhouse inquiry, which led to this legislation.
Last year, my colleagues who were involved in the consideration of the Care Standards Act 2000 supported the provisions establishing the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Even at that time, however, they questioned the lack of an equivalent provision for England.
The National Assembly for Wales has expressed its concerns about some of the limitations on the commissioner's remit. On Second Reading, in Committee, and earlier today on Report, we have alluded to some of the Bill's remaining defects. There is still a lack of clarity in distinguishing between the rights and responsibilities of parents and those of the Children's Commissioner. I have no doubt that those matters will be revisited in another place.
The Bill's most significant defect, however, arises from the devolution settlement. The public bodies in Wales that fall within the Bill's scope are listed in schedules to the Bill. However, the Government of Wales Act 1998 did not create a world in which all child abuse would be committed only by institutions subject to the supervision

of the National Assembly, while those who administer other public bodies in Wales would be sanctified and, by statue, become no threat to children's rights. That is clearly nonsense. The immigration service, the Prison Service, the police and the Army are only a few of the many public bodies that operate in Wales but are not covered by the Bill.
The schedules to the Bill cover the Welsh Language Board, but not Sianel Pedwar Cymru, which is probably the most significant promoter of the language. Such a nonsense would not exist if we had a children's rights commissioner for England and Wales, or for the whole of the United Kingdom. It would not exist, either, if we were to recognise in this limited Bill—it is limited to Wales—that public bodies in Wales are both devolved and non-devolved, and that the commissioner could be responsible not only to the Assembly for activities within its remit, but to the House for non-devolved matters.
We must now look to their lordships to improve the Bill as we seek to improve it. Conservative Members both in Wales and in this place will support such change—which is entirely consistent with what has been said in the Assembly by Members from all parties who want the commissioner's remit to extend not only to public bodies that fall within the scope of the Assembly's powers, but to those within the remit of this place.
We must not lose the plot. The Waterhouse report was about children in care, and the commissioner's primary responsibility must be towards children in care and children at risk. He has to get that right. Then we can look to him to be a key advocate in all other areas of public administration, whether they fall within the scope of the Assembly or of the United Kingdom Departments.
In evidence to the Health Committee in January 1998, the Government said that they were considering the matter as part of a response to the UN committee on compliance with the convention on the rights of the child. The report of the Health Committee, of which I was a member, was more definite. We argued that it was right for the United Kingdom to follow the example of a number of other western countries by creating the post of a children's rights commissioner.
We proposed a commissioner who would have the duty to promote awareness of the rights of the child; highlight ways in which present and proposed policy fails to deliver those rights in practice; conduct formal investigations into alleged breaches of children's rights; ensure that children have an effective means of redress when their rights are disregarded; and carry out and commission research relevant to safeguarding children's rights.
The Conservative party in both Westminster and Cardiff believes that it is appropriate that the commissioner should look after children in the care of local authorities and other public bodies, but we do not believe that the Bill is specific enough about his powers.
The Opposition have specific concerns about protecting the role of the family and of parents. We mentioned some of those on Report. The Bill will give the commissioner a wide remit, and we want to be careful not to allow him to supplant the parent. Parents should always be given the first opportunity to speak up for their children. We have said that, and we will oppose any measure that allows the commissioner to intervene unnecessarily in the family unit.
We also have concerns that the role of the commissioner is confused. For example, he has not been given jurisdiction over many areas in which children may come to harm, but he has specific roles in respect of schools, where teachers already play a vital part in protecting their pupils' welfare.
We feel that the Bill falls far short of the Assembly's vision. The job of commissioner is an independent post, funded by the Assembly, but the legislation makes no provision for him to be made accountable to Parliament. We believe in an effective commissioner who does not supplant parents' role, who has parents' confidence, whose role extends to all public bodies, and whose function could apply as much to England as it does to Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Getting the Bill through all its stages in the House has been a triumph. The Government responded very quickly to the Waterhouse report, got the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales established in the Care Standards Act 2000 and, following consultation with the National Assembly, introduced the much wider-ranging powers that the commissioner now has under the Bill.
I am pleased that the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group, which encompasses all the major children's charities in Wales, has welcomed the Bill and is pleased with the way in which the Government have acted, although it would have liked the commissioner, in a more focused and statutory way, to have been given a much wider role. Nevertheless, they have welcomed the Bill and want it to be enacted as soon as possible.
I should like to address some of the matters that the members of the campaign group have raised. They felt that under this Bill the Children's Commissioner would be merely an ombudsman for children's services, and that the post did not aspire to being a human rights institution. However, I believe that clause 2 gives the commissioner a basis for such an aspiration. It states:
The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies.
The schedule to the Bill means that any child treated in the national health service comes under the Bill, so any child in Wales can be considered.
Moreover, children who ordinarily live in Wales but who are treated in England, and whose treatment is paid for out of the Welsh purse, will also be covered. Therefore, I am sure that a commissioner with the necessary drive and foresight will be able to use the legislation to ensure that his office is a human rights institution. I have every confidence that Peter Clarke will be able to do that. Children cannot be divided into devolved and non-devolved parts, so it will be important for the commissioner to take that positive view.
The Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group set out five essential characteristics for the commissioner. They were that he should be able to set his own agenda, that he should be able to use the framework of the UN convention on the rights of the child as a guide, that he should have a special obligation to maintain direct contact

with children, that he should act as a spokesman for children, and that he should promote respect for the views of children throughout society. I believe that the Bill enables the commissioner to do all those things. There is certainly nothing in it to prevent him from doing them.
In Committee, we discussed the campaign group's concerns about how the commissioner would operate. The group wondered whether he would be able to report on primary legislation and potential primary legislation, and whether he would have the right to comment freely on non-devolved matters and functions when they have an impact on children in Wales.
The group was also concerned about whether he would be able to represent the interests of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales but who receive services, or who are accommodated, outside Wales, and whether he would be able to consider and make appropriate representations on any matters that, through consultation and other contact with children and young people in Wales, emerge as key concerns. The responses given by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box and in Committee have made it clear that the commissioner will be able to perform all the functions set out by the campaign group.
Nevertheless, some concerns remain. The Government want the Children's Commissioner for Wales to be successful, and they have a liberal interpretation of the way in which he will operate with the powers granted by the Bill. Perhaps the campaign group is right to wonder whether in 50 years time or so, a different Government might take a less liberal view. By that time, however, I imagine that the success of the commissioner in Wales, using the powers granted by the Bill, will have meant that there will be a role for a commissioner throughout the United Kingdom, with complete statutory backing and all the powers that any of us would ever want him to have. It needs to be emphasised that the commissioner introduced by this Bill will be independent. That is very important.
In conclusion, the problem of the relationship between devolved and non-devolved matters will mean that it is very important for the commissioner to network with, and work closely with, people such as the chief inspector of prisons. In that way, he will be able to make sure that children anywhere in Wales will have his backing when it comes to dealing with people in independent posts such as that. With close co-operation between the commissioner and those who hold similar offices, I am sure that the Bill will be a landmark in the progress that we are making to redress the terrors that children have suffered for far too long in many parts of Wales under the old system.
A new dawn is coming, and I believe that there will be further progress. Let us give the Bill the strongest possible support, to ensure that it is enacted before the election.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. As many people wish to make a contribution to this short debate, I ask Members to be as concise as possible.

Mr. Livsey: I will endeavour to abbreviate parts of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an historic occasion, because the Bill is the first piece of primary legislation specific to Wales since devolution. Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a Bill to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner.
Children are a particularly vulnerable group, as has been demonstrated clearly by the Waterhouse tribunal report on abuse in children's homes in north Wales. I commend every member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill for the sincerity and motivation that they showed in supporting it. It has been excellent. In some respects, however, the Bill has not met the aspirations of the National Assembly. I believe that technical problems were responsible.
The Liberal Democrats had a manifesto commitment in the National Assembly elections to appoint an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales. It is interesting that no amendments have been accepted during the Bill's passage. I believe that many of the amendments tabled in Committee followed pretty closely the wishes of the National Assembly for Wales.
It should be the duty of the commissioner to represent the views of children and to promote, for example, the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child. In debates on that issue, we emphasised that such rights were better discharged at small nation level.
The commissioner cannot comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals. That is to do with the fact that the Assembly only has secondary legislative functions and it points to some inadequacies in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The Government should, in another place, try and tease out, among all the parties in that place, the vexed issue of non-devolved matters that impinge upon children in Wales. There is no doubt that difficulties arise in the context of social security problems, legal problems and matters involving children in care outside Wales.
There are strict limitations on the scope of the Children's Commissioner's powers, as they cover only persons and services over which the National Assembly has responsibility. Obviously, I welcome that as a massive move forward. However, we need an independent commissioner who is able to get involved in any matter that may affect the rights and welfare of children.
The Bill broadens substantially the powers of the commissioner. He should be able to make representations on any matter affecting children in Wales, and the Bill goes a long way to achieving that.
The amendments may have been resisted on the grounds that to accept them would in some way undermine the Government of Wales Act 1998. I do not know whether that is true, but I suspect that it may be. It would appear that the Children's Commissioner would be allowed to make representations only about those matters specifically devolved to the National Assembly. If we examine the 1998 Act, the form of the Bill is understandable.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how that point relates to the commissioner's responsibilities under schedule 2A in respect of matters that might

otherwise fall within the ambit of the chief inspector of education in Wales, who reports back to Westminster rather than to the Assembly?

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to several anomalies. The correct assertion that devolution is a continuing process accounts in part for some of them.

Mr. Hanson: To clarify the matter, the chief inspector of schools in Wales reports to the Assembly.

Mr. Livsey: I am not surprised to hear that. I do not have the Minister's resources, so I was not well enough briefed to make that response to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn).
It is essential that, eventually, the commissioner's powers be extended to cover primary legislation—to encompass aspects such as social security. It has been argued that if the commissioner has statutory powers to comment on non-devolved matters, he will, in effect, have the power to require information from Departments of the UK Government. I suspect that that might be a problem.
Although the power does not seem unreasonable, strict constitutional rules are being rigorously applied owing to the fact that inadequate powers were devolved to the Assembly. It would thus seem sensible to devolve more powers to Wales and amend the 1998 Act in order to include primary legislative powers for the National Assembly for Wales. It is only a matter of time; undoubtedly, that day will come—but possibly not two or three months before a general election!

Ms Julie Morgan: I am pleased to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. The measure is important for many reasons. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is the first Wales-only Bill to be requested by the National Assembly for Wales. In that sense, it is historic. It also establishes the first Children's Commissioner in the United Kingdom, although there are children's commissioners and ombudsmen throughout Europe. The Under-Secretary has already noted that Northern Ireland proposes to appoint a children's commissioner—I very much welcome that.
Many children's charities have campaigned for many years for a commissioner. It is important to pay tribute to them and, especially to the Children in Wales consortium, which lobbied hard for a commissioner. It provided information to help members of the Standing Committee and is wholly committed to improving the lot of children in Wales. As hon. Members have said, children's charities in Wales have made a huge contribution to the measure.
I am pleased that it is a Labour Government who have given time for the Bill. I welcome the cross-party support that the measure received in Committee. It formed part of our manifesto commitment, and that of other parties, during the elections to the Assembly. I was disappointed that the Conservatives debated the programme motion for the full time so that we lost valuable time for discussion of the Bill. That was not in the spirit of the Bill's passage through the House so far.
The Bill has been universally welcomed throughout Wales and the UK. Its swift passage and the time allocated to it have been seen as a recognition of the importance that the Westminster Government attach to


working with the devolved Assembly. The establishment of a Children's Commissioner is obviously a priority in Wales, but not in England. It is right that devolution should work in that way.
All the children's charities welcome the Bill; the debate has been confined to the range of its powers. Although many and varied amendments were debated in Committee, the main thrust of the discussion throughout has been the commissioner's relationship to non-devolved matters. We have made progress in that respect. For example, we now know that the commissioner can comment on any matter that affects children in Wales. Of course, that includes non-devolved matters, such as children in prison. That issue has been raised frequently, because there is enormous concern in Wales about children who are in prison—in some cases, in England and far away from home—and someone must be able to speak on their behalf. We have been able to make it clear that the commissioner can comment on those issues as well as others, such as social security.
We want the commissioner to tackle the curse of poverty that affects children in Wales. Obviously, he is to do that, he must be able to comment on the benefits system and other non-devolved issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, it is difficult to split children's issues into little pieces. The Government's thrust is to try to work with the whole person and all aspects of children's lives.

Mr. Rogers: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not intend to suggest that the Bill has been introduced simply because of devolution in Wales. Obviously, the mechanics of devolution have allowed the Bill to be introduced, but the real reason for its existence has nothing to do with Government structures; it has to do with the fact that a horrendous scandal took place in Wales, and with the child abuse that led to the report.

Ms Morgan: The Bill is certainly a response to the scandals in Wales, but it is not possible to deny that devolution produced the Assembly and that it has seized the opportunity to set up the commissioner. We want to treat the problems of children as a whole, so the commissioner has to have responsibility for all children in Wales, not just those who receive certain services. I would welcome further clarification on how the commissioner can respond to non-devolved matters and on how he can comment on them.
Tremendous progress has been made. The Bill began with the proposal's inclusion in the Labour party manifesto. There has been an extensive consultation process in Wales. The National Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee's in-depth consultations led to its report, and the proposals have now reached the House. The House has extended the powers to include not only social services and children in regulated care, but all the Assembly's devolved areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, we hope that the Bill makes speedy progress so that it can be in place before a possible general election. That we have come this far is a triumph of everyone's working together. I wish the commissioner all the best in his new job. One of the most important things that I hope he will be able

to do is communicate with the children of Wales—an issue raised by all the members of the Committee. We want him to hear what they have to say, because they do not have a voice or a formal means of putting forward their views. We want him to be in dialogue with the children of Wales and thus to inform life in Wales.
Commissioners and ombudsmen in other European countries have been very successful in getting children's views heard and using them to influence legislation. Although the Assembly cannot legislate, I hope that the commissioner will influence how we run things. I wish Peter Clarke all the best and pay tribute to the Committee and all the Ministers who have brought the Bill this far.

Mr. Llwyd: As I was the first person to mention a commissioner, back in 1993, I too am very pleased that the Bill has completed its passage through the House. However, the work has not finished. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that I was pessimistic about the prospect of amendments being accepted, but I am afraid that I was right. None of them were accepted.
I shall rush through briefly some of the points that concern the very children's charities to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Cymru has written to us this week on two sheets of A4 paper expressing its concerns about the Bill. Although it welcomes the Bill, it does so with grave reservations.
A provision similar to that in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 should have been included in the Bill to enable the commissioner to speak about any matter affecting children resident in Wales. The commissioner will not be able to talk about any tribunal or court decision that has been made. That is bizarre and ridiculous, and the problem still has not been addressed. Cross-border issues have not been addressed, nor has the point about including the United Nations convention in the Bill. The Assembly requested action on all those points, but that has not been accepted by this House.
I do not wish to sour the atmosphere, but this whole back-slapping business is getting to me a little bit. We have not done half the job yet, and I hope that the other place will complete the work on several issues that concern organisations such as NSPCC Cymru. It is not politically motivated but, like reasonable hon. Members, it is concerned about the well-being of children and young people.
I have mentioned the UN convention, and there are concerns about whistle blowing and the remit on non-devolved matters, which is covered by the provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998. All those points are important and, on Second Reading, I told the hon. Member for Bridgend that there were four principal matters for debate. Those matters remain. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity for a second and we have received assurances from him. However, I would always prefer matters to be made clear on the face of any Bill that deals with such an important subject.
Earlier, it was suggested that the commissioner will have access to institutions, but he will have access to them only when the system has broken down. Plainly, that will be too late. There would be nothing wrong in allowing the commissioner to have access alongside members of


the inspectorate. That would have provided further supervision over the inspectorate, which would know that, at any time, the commissioner could move in.
Although I know that it does not sound like it, I welcome the Bill. I served on the Committee to improve the Bill. I have spoken to various children charities and they welcome the Bill as far as it goes. This is the second bite at the legislative cherry, but I hope that we do not have to return in another 12 months to find yet more time to deal with shortcomings in the Bill. None of us wants that. There are flaws in the Bill, and I hope that their lordships in the other place will address them.
I hope that any amendments tabled in the other place will not be stamped on in pre-emptive fashion by this House. That would be wrong and contemptible. We are part way to producing a good Bill but much more work needs to be done. Despite the consensus in Committee, I am disappointed that the Government did not consider any amendments. The most glaring example is the amendment that would have included a provision similar to that in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It would have gone a long way to allaying all the niggling fears that charities still have.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we discussed outside Committee what would happen if there were a legal challenge to any of the commissioner's work that was based on what appears in the Bill and what has been said about it? If there were a dispute about the meaning of the Bill, the Minister's words could be prayed in aid to clarify its intention. A much wider view can therefore be taken of what appears in the Bill.

Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I agree, and a 1992 case makes that point. However, is it not always better to provide clear legislation that does not have to go to the courts for consideration? Surely our job is to make plain on the face of any Bill what we want to say. We should not leave it to the whim of a High Court judge to consider what the Minister said at the time. It is far better to do things properly the first time round.

Mr. Dawson: I will be brief, as time is extremely short. I welcome this fine Bill. We should heed some of the wise words of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but I hear the optimism and good will expressed by my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary and the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
The only issue that I want to raise is whether my hon. Friend the Minister considers that the Children's Commissioner as currently constituted meets the Paris principles for human rights organisations set down by the United Nations in 1993. At the heart of this is a human rights issue.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: It looks as though the last word will fall, paradoxically, to an Englishman. That may be no bad thing because although this is a uniquely Welsh Bill, it may well prove to be a pilot for wider replication across the United Kingdom. All of us, then, would be affected.
I chide the Minister somewhat for claiming exclusive credit for the Government for implementing this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made clear, it was as a result of the tribunal set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in 1996 when he was Secretary of State for Wales that Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported his findings.

Mr. Win Griffiths: May I point out that, although my hon. Friend the Minister may not have mentioned that on Third Reading today, he referred on Second Reading and in Committee to the role played by the former Secretary of State for Wales, who is now the Leader of the Conservative party?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is extremely charitable and I take his point entirely. I thank him for it. I acknowledge that the measure enjoys the support of all parties, even if there are remaining concerns.
The first recommendation by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in his report was that there should be a Children's Commissioner for Wales. Anybody who has read the report cannot have been other than moved by the sheer magnitude of the abuse that was being inflicted on young people who were often placed in the Principality not by Welsh authorities, but by English ones. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Bridgend that social services did not do their job. I hope that social services departments throughout the country and particularly in Wales do not regard the appointment of the Children's Commissioner as a substitute for the need for them to exercise vigilance themselves. That would defeat the whole object, which is to improve protection for our children. They must note that it is our intention that they should continue to do the job that the public has charged them with.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset issued a caveat that I also share, which is that the commissioner should not supplant the role of parents. All of us in the House believe that it is the principal role of parents to bring up children. We do not wish the commissioner to supplant them.

Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that any decent, ordinary parent would welcome their children's rights being expanded, enhanced and developed by this sort of post? Does he further accept that any ordinary, decent parent has nothing whatever t o fear from the Children's Commissioner?

Mr. Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am most grateful to him for being sparing in his remarks to enable me to contribute. Yes, of course, I am sure that concern for children is the principal motive. However, it is important to get the balance right between the responsibilities of parents and those of society at large, to ensure that the wider needs of children are recognised.
I am sorry if I end on a slightly discordant note. I raised this point with the Secretary of State on Second Reading and I mention it in passing in the hope that the other place may be able to deal with it. The report states:
We draw the attention of Parliament to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred.
That was the way in which the tribunal—

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,
That (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales:, the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Didcot Structure Plan

7 pm

Mr. Robert Jackson: I rise to present two petitions on the same subject. My position is a delicate one because one of them calls on the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to call in plans for the proposed expansion of Didcot in my constituency, while the other asks him not to do so. It is my role, as the Member of Parliament representing these petitioners, to represent all of them—whatever their views—without fear or favour, which is why I find myself in an interesting position this evening.
For the record, I shall describe the two petitions. One of them—it is wrapped in elegant green ribbons—comes from the campaign for a sustainable Didcot. It carries some 3,000 signatures. It prays that the Secretary of State should
a) direct Oxfordshire County Council to pay due regard in its deliberations to all relevant planning guidances and to follow the clear preference expressed by the Panel of the Examination in Public for the north east option; and
b) to use his powers to call in the structure plan for determination should the county council in his view fail to pay such regard.
The other petition, which is bound in an equally elegant green ring-binder, comes from the group of 13 parishes and carries 2,607 signatures. It prays for
the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to resist demands for the decision to be called in which, if acceded to, would only undermine the local democratic process in our County"—
that is Oxfordshire—
and add unnecessarily to the already considerable costs to public funds.
May I put it on record that the painful dilemma that is reflected in these contradictory petitions arises from the Government's requirement that Oxfordshire must accommodate another 40,000 houses by the year 2006, with the prospect of yet more thereafter?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the petitions. He must not make a speech.

Mr. Jackson: I shall present the petitions, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Gas Prices

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the damage being done to United Kingdom manufacturing industry by the massive hikes in wholesale gas prices. The issue is of great concern to many Members on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who kick-started expressions of concern in the House by tabling an early-day motion a couple of months ago.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe in his place, because I know that he and the Government take the issue extremely seriously. When I led a delegation of energy-intensive users to see my hon. Friend a couple of weeks ago, it was clear that he understood the issues and was determined to act sooner rather than later. We saw that action the following day, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Commissioner Monti had acceded to the Government's request to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by companies using the interconnector pipeline between Britain and Belgium. That was a very welcome announcement indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide more detail about that investigation and—which is most important—say when it is likely to report and whether the Government will consider referring the matter to our own UK Competition Commission.
The backdrop to this debate is a manufacturing industry with contrasting fortunes. The pain and anger felt by communities in and near steel-producing areas at Corus's recent announcement of massive job losses have been voiced both inside and outside the House. Of course, that followed the disbelief of Vauxhall workers at Luton who learned of their fate on local radio. Both are examples of the fragility of part of our manufacturing base and of appalling industrial relations. I should certainly like to add my support to the calls for legislation on information and consultation that were made in Westminster Hall last week.
In contrast to that misery, other announcements have resulted in much celebration. Major investment by Nissan in the north-east, Ford at Bridgend and Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port have secured well-paid jobs for the foreseeable future. Without doubt, however, the most serious decision was that of Corns, the sheer scale of which will reverberate far beyond the immediate community. The difficulties have mostly been attributed to the strength of the pound and the fall in world orders. However, that is not the whole picture.
Steel is one of five major energy-intensive users, the others of which are cement, glass, chemicals and paper. With the exception of cement, all are major users of gas and all are being ripped off. In the past year, wholesale gas prices have doubled. Gas companies are making massive profits while manufacturing is getting caned. The combined increase in the cost to energy-intensive users has added £10 million a week—or £0.5 billion a year—to the bills of those valuable and vital industries in the

UK. The bills of the chemical industry have gone up by £300 million; those of the steel industry by £90 million; and those of the glass industry by £10 million a year.
Paper is the greatest constituency interest for me; nearly 1,000 people are employed in the paper and board mills of Chatham and Aylesford, producing 1.4 million tonnes per annum—the largest single concentration anywhere in the UK. The paper industry has seen the cost of gas go up by £50 million a year.
At a time when our manufacturing industry is meeting the challenges of environmental legislation and the weakness of the euro, gas prices in the UK should provide it with a competitive edge. That used to be the case. The UK's competitive gas market was achieved through a lot of hard work. We are one of the few countries to be self-sufficient in their gas requirement. Until last year, our prices were lower than those in the rest of Europe. A typical paper mill bought gas at 13p a therm, but that has now doubled to 26p. UK industry is being charged more for its gas than our competitors in Europe, where there is not a competitive market and where gas prices remain fixed to oil prices.
The big question is why prices have risen so dramatically and why they are higher in the UK than in mainland Europe? In an attempt to explain that, the UK Offshore Operators Association—the industry body for oil and gas—last month commissioned an independent report by ILEX Energy Consulting Ltd. entitled "What influences Gas Prices in the UK and why have they increased through 2000?" That report was produced in direct response to the criticisms of many, including the energy-intensive users. It said that demand for UK gas was increasing as a result of exports to Ireland and the continent through the two interconnectors. It rightly pointed out that there is capacity to export nearly 30 billion cu m per annum. To put that in context, the report goes on to say that total gas demand in Great Britain, without exports, is currently about 90 billion cu m. What the report does not say is that last year the interconnector's full capacity was never reached—nowhere near it. The highest point, I am informed, was 17 per cent. of capacity.
Some of the exports would have been sold under predetermined contracts, which would not have affected price. One must ask what proportion of the amount exported was under predetermined contracts. We do not know. Only those who own and run the interconnector, which in the main are the gas producers, know. Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Commission will examine that issue in its investigation?
The UK competitive market, with a self-sufficient supply, has its price determined by a market in Europe that is not competitive. I know that my hon. Friend is determined to press ahead in Europe so that competition will be opened up. That may be years away, and in certain quarters it will be resisted. In the meantime, why should UK manufacturing suffer?
According to the industry's independent report, to which I referred earlier, supply is outstripping demand, even when exports are taken into account. The authors of the report do not know why such a large gap has opened up between the UK and Zeebrugge prices. The effect of the interconnector at best provides inadequate evidence to justify the gas price increases, and at worst is being


used as a means of manipulating the market. If the interconnector was affecting the market, why has cheaper gas not flowed back to the UK?
The effect of the rises is hitting manufacturing, causing uncertainty and denting confidence among high gas users. One of the larger mills operating in the UK employs technical experts to study the market for the best prices. All have been unable to provide a satisfactory reason for the increases. It needs to be clearly established whether companies are using the interconnector to push prices in the UK up to European levels and above.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was right to act as he did. I know from conversations with those in the industry that his response was warmly welcomed. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether the investigation will examine ownership? There should be greater transparency in the gas industry, particularly as there are only a few key players whose interests extend throughout the European natural gas industry.
The dominant forces in the European industry are four large producers, which have a substantial downstream interest. BP Amoco, which has 19.1 per cent. of UK output, has a 25.2 per cent. share in Ruhrgas, the dominant German company. Exxon Mobil accounts for 15.2 per cent. of UK output, and has a 25 per cent. stake in Gasunie, the Dutch monopoly, and 22.5 per cent. in the dominant German company. Shell, which accounts for 9.4 per cent. of UK output, has a 25 per cent. share in Gasunie, 15 per cent. in Ruhrgas and 25 per cent. in Thyssengas, the German regional monopoly. TotalfinaElf, which accounts for 8.1 per cent of UK output, has a 50 per cent. share in both the French transmission companies. It is no coincidence that these main players also own the interconnector. It is a pretty cosy picture.
For some time, experts have been expressing concern to the Government about the European structure. My hon. Friend's predecessor received a letter from Mr. Patrick Heren of PH Energy Analysis Ltd., who is highly regarded in the field. He stated:
I do not suggest that these companies conspire together to maintain prices. They do not need to. The European gas industry is structured for their benefit. This structure is not conducive to effective competition which the European Gas Directive is intended to foster.
Does my hon. Friend agree with that observation, and does he believe that the existing structure is conducive to achieving the competitive market for gas that we want to see throughout Europe?
Soaring gas prices have consequences that are more damaging than is immediately apparent. In the paper industry, there have been important moves towards installing more combined heat and power plants in mills. Almost 100 mills operate in the United Kingdom, 20 of which have invested in CHP since 1990. The average cost of a CHP plant is about £10 million. Such investments take years to pay back, but competitive gas prices have been an incentive. Some investments have been much larger. Shotton paper mill, which has a capacity of about 500,000 tonnes of newsprint per annum, spent £80 million on a new CHP plant.
The climate change levy is an added incentive for paper mills to invest, as it exempts good-quality CHP. However, I know of two UK paper mills that have cancelled the

development of CHP plants since gas prices rose so dramatically. CHP development is crucial to our commitment to cut CO, measurements to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels. In 1990, before the installation of a CHP plant, Aylesford Newsprint in my constituency produced 1.2 tonnes of carbon for every tonne of paper. After the installation of the plant, 0.44 tonnes of carbon are produced for every tonne of paper. The site is operating some 450,000 tonnes of paper every year, so the savings to the environment are clear.
A finger of suspicion is pointing at gas producers. Manufacturing believes that it is being ripped off by anti-competitive practices. Many questions need answering, including those on the ownership structure in Europe. We have plenty of gas suppliers and, as I said, supply is outstripping demand, but our industries our suffering. The matter needs resolving quickly if we are to avoid manufacturing job losses. The Commission's investigation should be concluded sooner rather than later. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the Government will impress upon it the urgency of the matter.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): It is a pleasure to appear before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are a Welsh Deputy Speaker and your distinction is increased by the fact that your husband comes from the Neath valley in my constituency.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing a debate on this important topic. I acknowledge his expertise and the energy that he puts into representing his constituency interests and the concerns of industries throughout the country, for which he has eloquently spoken. I valued the meeting that he initiated on behalf of the energy-intensive users group. Following that meeting, I received from the Confederation of European Paper Industries a well-argued submission that I have studied carefully.
I am all too aware that many important industries are paying substantially more for gas than they did this time last year, and that that has potentially serious consequences for competitiveness. I welcome this opportunity to state clearly the major causes of the price rise and the action that the Government are taking to address the problem.
An important cause of the doubling in wholesale gas prices has been arbitrage across the interconnector with high oil-related gas prices in Europe. The lack of liberalisation and competition in Europe and the consequent lack of competition among different gas companies meant that when oil prices went up, European gas prices did also, and British prices followed.
When the interconnector was commissioned in 1998, it did not have a significant upward pressure on prices because oil-related gas prices in Europe were very low at that time. However, as oil prices increased, so did continental gas prices. Trade and the opportunity for trade across the interconnector have caused the British price to rise as well. We have experienced not only physical interconnection, but economic and price interconnection.
Prices have also been affected by the tightening of gas supply and demand as gas has been exported to Europe. The difference in price between the UK and the continent


during 2000 meant that exportation was very attractive and record levels of gas went across the interconnector. Gas demand was 20 per cent. higher on some days last year than it was in 1999. This winter there has also been upward pressure on prices because of slightly lower North sea production than was planned, owing mainly to breakdowns. Imports through the interconnector since October have often helped to meet demand as European prices have been passed straight through.
The situation is serious, and my hon. Friend was right to spell it out, but the Government have been active right across the gas market—from offshore production to the wider European market—in addressing the problems. I shall briefly outline our proposed three-point strategy before discussing the individual parts in more detail.
The key is to increase liberalisation and competition in Europe. The Government want the Stockholm summit in June to drive forward full liberalisation and reform of the gas market in Europe. We are also taking every opportunity to raise the need for liberalisation with our opposite numbers in other member states. This will, of course, not be achieved overnight, but it is at the heart of the problem and must be tackled.
We are looking at ways of improving the functioning of all parts of the market. That involves increasing the amount of information available to the market, both across the onshore-offshore interface and from the interconnector, to achieve full transparency. A well-informed market is an efficient market. Such action will help the market to work more effectively by, for example, enabling it to prepare when it sees that there are planned maintenance outages in the North sea.
We are also acting against potential anti-competitive behaviour, a phenomenon to which my hon. Friend drew attention. The operation of the interconnector has been giving cause for concern for some time, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore wrote to Commissioner Monti requesting a Commission inquiry. The Commission has now indicated that it will look into the matter. We want the report that he will deliver to be finalised as swiftly as possible. This demonstrates that we shall not hesitate to refer any evidence of any kind of anti-competitive behaviour to the appropriate competition authorities.
It is vital for the interconnector to work in a transparent and efficient manner. Therefore, in a separate but related exercise, we are working with the interconnector shippers to establish whether more information can be made available to the market. We believe that that will produce a tangible improvement in the market. I know that some have suggested simply closing down the interconnector as a solution to all our problems, but that is not practical: closing it down would put us in breach of our European Union and wider international obligations, as well as exposing the Government to the possibility of civil action from interconnector shippers for many millions of pounds.
Moreover, the interconnector has a crucial function in regard to security of supply. Our forecasts suggest that Britain will be a net importer of gas by 2005, although there are indications that that may happen earlier. When the time comes, we shall rely heavily on interconnector imports; meanwhile we already need to draw on supplies imported through the interconnector from time to time.

For example, this winter we imported for nearly two months—from November to January—and we are currently importing again.
Following our agreement at the Lisbon European Council meeting last year to speed up liberalisation across the European Union, the Commission will shortly propose a directive to bring about a properly competitive single energy market. We welcome that, and the Commission has the Government's full support in pressing ahead with the Lisbon-Stockholm process, leading to early full gas market liberalisation. The Government also welcome the measures that the Commission has been taking from time to time to challenge restrictive provisions relating to the supply of gas to the EU from other areas and other states, including Norway and Algeria. Progress in that respect is essential if we are to achieve the full "gas-to-gas" competition towards which we are all working.
As well as ensuring that the European market works, we need to ensure that the British market works and is seen to work, and is seen as being fully transparent. We have therefore been working with offshore companies and interconnector shippers to see what scope there is for making more information available. I am encouraged by the co-operative spirit that we have seen so far, and believe that it may result in a tangible benefit to all players in the market.
We will act forcefully against anti-competitive practices, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend. If there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, the Director General of Fair Trading, John Vickers, has strong powers to act, and should he find evidence of any anti-competitive behaviour prohibited by the Competition Act 1998, he will act promptly.
We acknowledge that recent higher gas prices add to the burdens on businesses, and we take seriously their concerns on the matter. However, the climate change levy is being introduced as part of our response to the real, long-term threats posed by global warming.
The recent upward movement in gas prices reflects short-term fluctuations in the markets, but the climate change levy is intended to produce significant carbon savings, up to and during the Kyoto target period of 2008 to 2012. That mechanism will stay in place, and we are working with industry—particularly highly intensive users of energy—to minimise the impact of the levy on them. The Chancellor has introduced an approach that will achieve that.
As part of the climate change challenge, the Government are serious about their target of achieving at least 10,000 MW of combined heat and power capacity by 2010. That will make an important contribution to meeting our climate change objectives set out at Kyoto. The Government will be consulting on a draft strategy shortly, setting out measures already announced, and other new ones that will help to achieve that target.
High gas prices may have had an impact on investment in combined heat and power. By affecting the relative price of gas and electricity, they may make CHP less attractive in the short term. However, our commitment to CHP is long term, and high fossil fuel prices tend to sharpen commercial incentives to use those fuels as efficiently as possible. Recently, I had a meeting as a result of representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), because CHP forms an important part of the electricity market in Slough, and we


want to safeguard its interests. We are working with the entire industry to advance its opportunities and protect it against uncompetitive attack.
The paper and board industry occupies an important place in the UK economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford drew our attention to that most appropriately. The industry has some 20,000 employees in about 90 mills spread all over the country and contributes more than £4 billion in gross value added to our GDP. Despite that enormous contribution and large turnover, the profit margins of the industry are very small—minute, in fact. I was given a figure of about £150 million by the delegation from the paper industry that my hon. Friend brought to see me.
The industry has already spent an extra £50 million as a result of this enormous explosion in prices in the gas market. That represents a big squeeze on profits, and it is unsustainable. I recognise that, and we want to work closely in partnership with the industry to ensure that it will not be affected in too dramatic a fashion as a result of that squeeze.
Although the industry faces competitive challenges in a global marketplace and employment is contracting, output has continued to increase and productivity has been increasing substantially, much to its credit. Nevertheless, I recognise that the industry faces a number of economic

challenges to ensure its future strength. We want to put in place an action plan with the industry to overcome those challenges, and I hope that my hon. Friend and others will work with us to achieve that.
In summary, I agree with my hon. Friend about the seriousness of the matter. The Government recognise the damage caused by the artificial behaviour in the gas markets, which is difficult to explain. We have identified the principal causes and are well on the way to providing solutions. I want to work with the gas industry, the associated oil industry and those who have to pay the increasingly high prices, to tackle the problem as quickly as possible.
I call on our colleagues in the European Union to work with us because an uncompetitive gas market does not benefit Britain and is also damaging to Europe's long-term future. We are suffering although we are innocent. We have put our house in order and reduced gas prices, but are suffering from artificially induced pressure on gas prices.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House and for the opportunity to set out the Government's action programme, which is clear and dynamic and shows that we are committed to solving the problem. We will leave no stone unturned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.